Misplaced Pages

Talk:Julian calendar: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:25, 22 April 2010 edit71.136.57.160 (talk) Revert. Usual reason.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:53, 24 December 2024 edit undoKimYunmi (talk | contribs)421 edits →Wrong Gregorian date on calendar widget 
(620 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Time|class=C|priority=|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Time|importance=High|priority=}}
{{Classical Greece and Rome|class=C|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|importance=Mid}}
}} }}
{{British English}} {{British English|date=September 2010}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2011-01-01|oldid1=405369460}}


{{archive box|] ]}} {{archive box|] ] ]}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}
==Celsus and the Triennial Cycles: A Proposal==
|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 5
And a happy Mother's Day (it's different over here). I thought the indent rule was that each contributor's posts were aligned, so that on this thread Dr Bennett would be justified left, I would be on first tab and Gerry on second. If I am wrong no doubt Joe will put things right.
|minthreadsleft = 3
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Julian calendar/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Edit 'Table of months' ==
I take it from the last post that none of the people Dr Bennett wants to call as witnesses is alive. I therefore suggest the following wordings:


'Table of months' needs a capital for months; eg: 'Table of Months' as it is a title.
'''Motivation'''


The table is incorrectly formatted. There is a section under the names of English months for the total number of days, it shouldn't be there. I also think either two separate tables should be made, one for the Roman side and one for the English side, or change the positioning of the English side to be between the Roman number of days and the English number of days. ] (]) 02:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
The ordinary year in the previous Roman calendar consisted of twelve months, for a total of 355 days. In addition, a 27 or 28 - day intercalary month, the ''mensis intercalaris'', was sometimes inserted immediately after February 23, the last five days of February (''a.d. VI Kal. Mart.'' to ''Prid. Kal. Mart.'') becoming the last five days of the ''mensis intercalaris'' with the same names. The start of the ''mensis intercalaris'' was delayed by one day in 170BC to prevent certain festivals of March (then the first month of the year) falling on a market day. An alternative model, proposed by Mrs Agnes Kirsopp Michels in 1967, is not now regarded as viable. The decision to insert the intercalary month, etc.


:Table also has the wrong date for Julian lengths. These values came into effect after Augustus reformed the Julian calendar. Between 45BCE (Julius's reform) and Augustus's reform, Feb was 29 days in common years (30dys in leap years by doubling Feb 24th), and Sextilus (soon, future August) through December lengths were opposite (Sextilus was 30, Sept was 31, Oct was 30, Nov was 31, and Dec was 30). An additional column could be inserted before the current one for actual 45BCE, and the current column could be renamed to reflect the Augustus reform a few decades later. — ] (]) 17:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
'''Leap year error'''


:: Please read ]. ] (]) 21:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
...In 1999, an Egyptian papyrus was published that gives an ephemeris table for 24BC with both Roman and Egyptian dates. The Roman dates are not aligned with any of these solutions - they are aligned with the Julian calendar as it would have been if it had been operated corrrectly.(note 8). One suggested resolution of the problem is that the triennial cycle never found favour in Egypt.


:::{{User|AstroLynx}}, Didn't they just find something from the 30s BCE that upended that a couple years ago? — ] (]) 01:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't follow Dr Bennett's reasoning on the fifth triennial cycle. If you apply it to my table ], by 24BC 1 Thoth (wandering) is falling on August 27, but on the true Julian calendar it is falling on August 29 (the same day as in the fixed Alexandrian calendar). ] (]) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


::::If you can find a reliable source for this claim then you can add this to the section on Sacrobosco's error. WP is, however, not based on hearsay. ] (]) 13:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
:Thank you for confirming beyond doubt that you are our hydra-headed IP friend the Intercalary Fool engaged in yet another strategy for block evasion. Since WP does encourage blocked IP users to take a User ID (something I tried to get you to do 2 years ago), you get one free pass. And only one.
:::::I'm not exactly sure what piece of evidence al-Shimoni is referring to, but mentions a calendar from the 30s BCE with the modern month lengths. Modern research is clear-cut on the matter, though the theory still gets trotted out every now and then (Nothaft 2018 mentions a couple of examples).
:::::Incidentally, the section discussing the theory was much larger until by JMF in September 2023, <s>leaving a remnant that needs cleanup</s>. ] (]) 08:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::I deleted it because it was grossly ]. It is certainly ] to say that there was a notable but incorrect theory and but it was a disservice to users to clutter ''this'' article with its details. They belong in the article about ], not here. (If there is a loose end, I will clean it up now.) --] (]) 11:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Arcorann}} Sorry but I can't see any obvious "remnant that needs cleanup"? --] (]) 11:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::::After reading it back again it wasn't as bad as I thought so I've struck the comment. Having said that, it does seem a bit strange to me to talk about the evidence that contradicts the model without a description of the model. ] (]) 10:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I can understand that. Would it help if I copied to ] the material I deleted? That way you can refer to it but it doesn't need to be spelt out in detail in the same article. Perhaps you could add a very brief summary of Sacrobosco's theory here, or perhaps better still move the analysis that disproved it to the Sacrobosco article? For comparison, it might be worth looking at ] article, where an erroneous theory is mentioned but readers who want to know more about it are referred to another article. --] (]) 11:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


===Outright deletion===
:Re your first point: It hardly matters whether any of the scholars I listed are dead or alive (though FYI some are very much alive -- and if that's your standard Ideler, de Sanctis and even Bickerman have been deader for far longer). The fact is that Michels' reconstruction '''is''' the standard view of modern scholarship, and the cited work of these scholars is irrefutable evidence of it. The reasons for this have been repeatedly explained to you over two years. Further, you have been repeatedly challenged (a) to read Michels' book and (b) to provide any evidence at all of widely accepted refutations of her reconstruction (or indeed '''any''' published refutation by a reputable scholar), and you have repeatedly ignored this. Without such evidence, there is no reason at all even to consider your suggested edit, which anyway does not belong in this article.
{{ping|Jbening}}, you have just deleted all mention of Sacrobosco from the article. Did you take into account the discussion above or the one in ]? I also considered it undue but stopped short of outright deletion. If otherwise reliable sources are still citing his theory then at least some reference should be made? I won't revert: if anyone else considers it significant, then they should do so{{snd}} and say that they are writing a section about it at ]. --] (]) 16:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|JMF}}, I noticed after my edits that it was you who (late last year) deleted the explanation of Sacrobosco's theory, leaving a section that said his theory was wrong but never explained what his theory was. To me, the fact that the theory isn't even mentioned (much less explained) in his WP bio indicates that it's no big deal. So I'm fine with the article as is, notwithstanding the earlier discussion. The alternatives would I think be either to restore the explanatory text that you deleted, or to find some briefer way to explain the gist of the theory, without all those tables. And if his theory is worth mentioning in this article, you'd think it would also be worth mentioning in his bio. ] (]) 18:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
::...which was pretty much my logic too. Clearly nobody considered it notable enough to take time to transfer it to his article. ] (]) 18:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


== January 15 ==
:Re your second point: you are now arguing about whether the observation of a match to the proleptic Julian calendar belongs in the body of the text or a footnote. Since the subject of the section is the triennial cycle, the main point is to explain why an alternate triennial cycle was suggested, so this text clearly belongs in a footnote. If you really need it to be in the main text, please provide a justification for placing it there which amounts to something other than you don't think my reconstruction can be right, apparently because you don't like me.


What was January 15 called according to the Julian calendar? Ides Januari or...? ] (]) 14:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
:Your other suggestion here, that the triennial cycle "never" found favour in Egypt, is entirely your own speculation. Jones' proposal to explain the Egyptian data is that the correct Julian calendar was in place in 24 B.C. but had been replaced by the Roman calendar sometime before 2 B.C.


:Idus Ianuarie in English is January 13. January 15 is a.d. XVIII Kalendas Februarias, that is, eighteen days before the first day of February, counted inclusively as the Romans did. See Blackburn & Holford-Strevens, ''The Oxford Companion to the Year'' (1999, reprinted with corrections 2003), pp. 33, 37. ] (]) 17:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
:As to how my triennial cycle works please see the Excel spreadsheet on my site at (HTML version at ).


== Wrong Gregorian date on calendar widget ==
:As I said, this is your one free pass as far as I am concerned. If you start engaging in serious discussion we can discuss. If you carry on as you have done, and as I fully expect you to do, I will be reverting you in both the article and this talk page for block evasion, and I trust others will too. --] (]) 19:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


I'm looking at this article and it tells me today's Gregorian date is 14 Nov. What's up with that? ] (]) 19:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
==New calendar (Eastern churches)==
:Possible cache interference? See ] and then ]. The widget certainly works. --] (]) 21:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)


==Needs sourcing==
There is still time to vote on the proposed change of name for this article. Please cast your ballot at ]. ] (]) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
"Gregory's calendar reform modified the Julian rule, to reduce the average length of the calendar year from 365.25 days to 365.2425 days and thus corrected the Julian calendar's drift against the solar year: the Gregorian calendar gains just 0.1 day over 400 years." --] (]) 01:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:53, 24 December 2024

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconTime High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconClassical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on January 1, 2011.
Archiving icon
Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Edit 'Table of months'

'Table of months' needs a capital for months; eg: 'Table of Months' as it is a title.

The table is incorrectly formatted. There is a section under the names of English months for the total number of days, it shouldn't be there. I also think either two separate tables should be made, one for the Roman side and one for the English side, or change the positioning of the English side to be between the Roman number of days and the English number of days. 122.199.2.194 (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Table also has the wrong date for Julian lengths. These values came into effect after Augustus reformed the Julian calendar. Between 45BCE (Julius's reform) and Augustus's reform, Feb was 29 days in common years (30dys in leap years by doubling Feb 24th), and Sextilus (soon, future August) through December lengths were opposite (Sextilus was 30, Sept was 31, Oct was 30, Nov was 31, and Dec was 30). An additional column could be inserted before the current one for actual 45BCE, and the current column could be renamed to reflect the Augustus reform a few decades later. — al-Shimoni (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Please read Sacrobosco's incorrect theory on month lengths. AstroLynx (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
AstroLynx (talk · contribs), Didn't they just find something from the 30s BCE that upended that a couple years ago? — al-Shimoni (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
If you can find a reliable source for this claim then you can add this to the section on Sacrobosco's error. WP is, however, not based on hearsay. AstroLynx (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what piece of evidence al-Shimoni is referring to, but Lamont in 1919 mentions a calendar from the 30s BCE with the modern month lengths. Modern research is clear-cut on the matter, though the theory still gets trotted out every now and then (Nothaft 2018 mentions a couple of examples).
Incidentally, the section discussing the theory was much larger until this edit by JMF in September 2023, leaving a remnant that needs cleanup. Arcorann (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I deleted it because it was grossly wp:undue. It is certainly wp:due to say that there was a notable but incorrect theory and but it was a disservice to users to clutter this article with its details. They belong in the article about Sacrobosco, not here. (If there is a loose end, I will clean it up now.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Arcorann: Sorry but I can't see any obvious "remnant that needs cleanup"? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
After reading it back again it wasn't as bad as I thought so I've struck the comment. Having said that, it does seem a bit strange to me to talk about the evidence that contradicts the model without a description of the model. Arcorann (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I can understand that. Would it help if I copied to Sacrobosco the material I deleted? That way you can refer to it but it doesn't need to be spelt out in detail in the same article. Perhaps you could add a very brief summary of Sacrobosco's theory here, or perhaps better still move the analysis that disproved it to the Sacrobosco article? For comparison, it might be worth looking at oxygen#Phlogiston theory article, where an erroneous theory is mentioned but readers who want to know more about it are referred to another article. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Outright deletion

@Jbening:, you have just deleted all mention of Sacrobosco from the article. Did you take into account the discussion above or the one in Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 3#Sacrobosco's theory on month lengths? I also considered it undue but stopped short of outright deletion. If otherwise reliable sources are still citing his theory then at least some reference should be made? I won't revert: if anyone else considers it significant, then they should do so – and say that they are writing a section about it at Sacrobosco. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@JMF:, I noticed after my edits that it was you who (late last year) deleted the explanation of Sacrobosco's theory, leaving a section that said his theory was wrong but never explained what his theory was. To me, the fact that the theory isn't even mentioned (much less explained) in his WP bio indicates that it's no big deal. So I'm fine with the article as is, notwithstanding the earlier discussion. The alternatives would I think be either to restore the explanatory text that you deleted, or to find some briefer way to explain the gist of the theory, without all those tables. And if his theory is worth mentioning in this article, you'd think it would also be worth mentioning in his bio. Jbening (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
...which was pretty much my logic too. Clearly nobody considered it notable enough to take time to transfer it to his article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

January 15

What was January 15 called according to the Julian calendar? Ides Januari or...? 0m9Ep (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Idus Ianuarie in English is January 13. January 15 is a.d. XVIII Kalendas Februarias, that is, eighteen days before the first day of February, counted inclusively as the Romans did. See Blackburn & Holford-Strevens, The Oxford Companion to the Year (1999, reprinted with corrections 2003), pp. 33, 37. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong Gregorian date on calendar widget

I'm looking at this article on 17 Nov 24 and it tells me today's Gregorian date is 14 Nov. What's up with that? 75.185.193.38 (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Possible cache interference? See Misplaced Pages:Bypass your cache and then WP:PURGE. The widget certainly works. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Needs sourcing

"Gregory's calendar reform modified the Julian rule, to reduce the average length of the calendar year from 365.25 days to 365.2425 days and thus corrected the Julian calendar's drift against the solar year: the Gregorian calendar gains just 0.1 day over 400 years." --KimYunmi (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: