Talk:Chinese calendar

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

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 ✉ 17:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Older comments

A Winner of the August 2004 West Dakota Prize

This entry has won the West Dakota Prize for successfully employing the expression "legend states" in a complete sentence.

---

In this article, it gives a story about why the cat isn't on the calendar, under "Twelve Animals." Namely, the rat pushed the cat into the water during a competition to be the animals on the calendar -- the cat wasn't able to make it to the shore so he was left out. However, in Chinese_astrology which is linked to from this article, it says the rat was given the job of making invitations, and he didn't invite the cat. Which is true? -- anonymous

There are many different variations to the legend. Both are, in a sense, true. -- Anonymous

---

someone should copyedit this page. -- voidvector

Why are the Jie Qi specified as date range? I thought all these are used by Chinese farmers to mark certain points in the farming cycle. So the date should be used, not a range. Kowloonese 01:53, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

This is unclear to me: "The Chinese lunar calendar and the Julian Calendar OFTEN sync up every 19 years. Most Chinese people notice that their Chinese and Western birthdays OFTEN fall on the same day on their 19th, 38th birthday etc" "Often" or DO "sync up"? Do they or don't they fall into sync on that pattern, and if sometimes not, is there a pattern to the exceptions to the pattern??

They often synchronize, but not always, because of the patterns of leap months in the Chinese Calendar and leap days in the Gregorian.

---

"The Chinese zodiac is completely different..." Different from what? The Western zodiac? And why is the Western zodiac referenced at all here-- I get the feeling that "Western astrological sign" is getting mixed up with "constellation" in the description of Chinese month sequencing.

---

The Western Zodiac is referenced because it fits in with the principal solar terms of the Chinese calendar and so makes the Chinese calendar easier to explain to Westerners who are familiar with their zodiac, but not the principal terms.

The sun enters a sign of the western zodiac at exactly the same time as a principal solar term.

User:Karl Palmen 7 Jan 2004

---

The date ranges for the jieqi have been changed to single dates, and the ecliptic longitude of each jieqi has been added.
Joe Kress 02:19, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)

---

Seems to me the pinyin "Zhong Yang Jie" should be "Chong2 Yang Jie", since the meaning is "double". That's how it's listed at zhongwen.com.

It appears that the neither Zhong nor Chong should appear under "English Name", but that both "Double Ninth Festival" and "Double Yang Festival" should appear (yang doesn't have a direct English translation but it is an entry in its own right in the Oxford English Dictionary and is at least familiar to English readers via the dichotomy yinyang). However, under "Chinese Name" you might be right. Zhòng was added by 204.221.24.132 on Nov. 1, 2003 and was never changed. 重 is romanized into pinyin as either zhong4 (zhòng) or chong2 (chóng) according to both zhongwen.com and mandarintools.com, so that both appear to be equally correct. However, as you note, zhongwen.com does use chóng in the specific entry for 'double nine' 重九. However, that is not the 'double yang' 重陽 in the article. I don't have any idea whether that makes a difference. Perhaps this is a matter of euphony--what sounds pleasing to the Chinese ear, or what is most easily pronounced in concert with neighboring characters.

By the way, if you are using the Microsoft Windows Operating System, you don't have to enter ó via its HTML code ó, rather, the character can be directly entered from keyboards not having it (like the English keyboard) by activating NumLock and pressing and holding Alt while typing 0243 on the numeric keypad, not on the number keys above the Qwerty keyboard (the leading zero is required). This technique can be used for many other characters having three digit decimal codes. See ASCII - ISO 8859-1 (Latin-1) Table with HTML Entity Names for a complete list. This excludes tone 3 characters requiring the upside down caret ^, which many users cannot display anyway because they don't have the required fonts installed).
Joe Kress 05:44, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

A quick survey of "Double Ninth Festival" on Google provides no doubt that you are right--the correct pinyin is chóng, thus I will change the article. On another point, yang is almost always used for the second character, not jiu (nine), thus the second character under "Chinese Name" is correct. However, the preferred English translation is Double Ninth Festival, Double Yang Festival only being used for explanation, thus the entry under "English Name" is correct.
Joe Kress 23:46, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Korea

The article says regarding the Korean Calendar that "Korea was a vassal state of China" which is the Chinese version of history which for some unfortunate reason seems to have become the Western version.

So suggest an alternative wording which acknowledges the fact that the Korean court accepted the new Chinese calendar every year with great pagentry, which, as far as the Emperor of China was concerned, was an acknowledgement by the King of Korea that the Emperor of China as more important than he was. Or was this a sham ceremony, having no real meaning as far as the King was concerned, conducted only to keep the Emperor happy? If the King had not accepted the Emperor's calendar, or at least seemed to accept it, it would have been a sign of rebellion by the King. — Joe Kress 08:12, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to something I hope is more accurate. "Vassal state", if used in a technical sense rather than a derogatory sense, implies an obligation on the superior state to militarily defend the lesser state in the case of an attack. I don't believe China recognized such an obligation. technopilgrim 20:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the phrase "while shutting off relations with all other countries." I suspect that Korea maintained diplomatic relations with some other countries or regions or people who also had close relations with China. Though Korea may not have had diplomatic relations with other countries that were not closely aligned with China, they probably had some kind of relationship with them. — Joe Kress 06:56, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Boohoo... seriously, maybe Koreans should just accept their history instead of trying to wipe off Chinese influences. It's like how they just changed the Chinese name of Seoul to some nonsensical name to sound like Seoul. Why? Do you see the Japs changing Tokyo to a Japanese word? If they can deal with their capital city having a Chinese name, why can't the Koreans handle it? Even if you don't like it, it was a vassal state! otherwise, when the japs invaded during the 19th century, why did china have an obligation to go and help them?

why can't i find the date of chinese new year here

without being a mathemetician? perhaps i will give up on this site for not being useful. i didn't know it was written by whoever comes here, no verification of facts posted. not exactly an encyclopedia simply because of that, as real encyclopedias cite the names and QUALIFICATIONS of their contributors. maybe i should post the wrong info to get this problem solved.

How about looking at Chinese New Year? andy 22:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is a longer list of new year dates at Chinese astrology. Regarding your comment about the QUALIFICATIONS of the contributors to wikipedia, I guess the website is not what you are looking for because it is not written by one specific person. However, writings of any contributor are often challenged and debated by other contributors. You probably can try your idea here. Post some nonsense and watch how long you will survive here. Kowloonese 01:33, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Since the Chinese calendar is based on Solar & Lunar Calendars, the Chinese New Year falls on a different date each year.

Anonymous

Chinese calendar reform

Roland Longbow added a long section which proposed that the Chinese calendar be reformed, giving his ideas for this reform. I am reverting this section because it violates official Widipedia policy which prohibits new ideas. It can be included only if those ideas have been published in some peer-reviewed journal, which must be cited. — Joe Kress 05:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Joe: Those are not new ideas and not presented as such. You did not read it carefully. If you seach the Chinese websites, you can find quite a few of them. In other words, I did not propose any of those things. As for the discussion about the intercalary month, it is not a proposal for reform, but one way to aid the understanding of how the intercalary month works, which has been made clear in the text. The discussion whether they can do without the Chinese calendar is meant to help the reader to understand the function of the calendar, and it is not a proposal for reform. Many people from China have asked that question. As I see it, they do not violate any wikipedia rules. --Roland 07:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Those two long sections at the end of the page are not encyclopaedic - they are opinions rather than facts. I've edited them and tried to make them clearer and more objective. Help in further improving them is welcome. --Sumple 01:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I will second this. The last section is loaded and biased. There have been perpetual calls for "reforms" of the perfectly servicable calendar since the May Fourth movement. There are also many calling for a return to it. But this section's language (ie "sentimental", and the resigned tsk-tsking "for some time yet") is politically partisan. It furthermore disrespectfully glosses over the lunisolar calendar's significance as an ontological necessity in Chinese Religion and Daoism. It presents biased arguments for the eradication of the Chinese calendar in favor of the Christian one. For the above reasons, I propose the section be stricken for unencyclopedic wonkery. And, for what it's worth, the Chinese calendar is very much alive in "practical" quotidian use in Chinese communities; I will attest to that as a personal user.--Aunty Entity 08:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

New year holiday

As it presently stands, the comments column for the new year holiday (Chunjie) says "[celebrate] for 3 days; traditionally for 15 days." The "traditionally for 15 days" part is obvious. But what does it mean by celebrate for 3 days? Currently the public holiday for Chinese New Year in China is 7 days.

The description in the article is not correct. Traditionally, the new year celebration begins on month 12 day 23, which called "little new year", until month 1 day 15. — Yaohua2000 03:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Actual calendar?

I'm thinking maybe this page could provide an actual Chinese calendar. what do youse think? --Sumple 23:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternative "Flower" names for the months: Guava?

In the article as it stands there are references to alternative names for the 12 months based on agricultural/horticultural references. Can anyone verify the source for these things? Also, someone posted a comment about it being "pomegranate" not "guava", which makes sense because pomegranates are much more common in China than guava. --Sumple 22:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely pomegranate, not guava. Anyway, I suggest drop the part completely as each month has 10 or so alternative names. There is no point addressing only the "flower" alternative names but not others. The alternative names are not commonly used anyway.

Remember to sign your posts.

Anyway, same thing. I'd like to see a source on the uncommon (but pretty) Latin translation of Pomegramber as Guavamens. It probably is what the actual source says, even if it's infelicitous, but we should be able to cite the source.

As for removing, heavily opposed. I just tabled the thing and included most of the alternate names, with links to wiktionary when someone feels like adding the words. — LlywelynII 00:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

first day of each month beginning at midnight...

this might be an error because according to traditional chinese way of measuring time, it was measured in intervals of our modern two hours. the first day of each day (and month etc.) is our modern 11pm, and not midnight which is a common misconception which not many people know. - Gerald

I assume you refer to "The months are lunar months, such that the first day of each month beginning at midnight is the day of the astronomical new moon."

the language used a bit ambiguous but I think a possible interpretation is that the "day of the astronomical new moon" means the "day" in our sense of the term (midnight-midnight), not the ancient chinese sense (11pm-11pm), and that the new moon falls between the midnight of that day and the midnight of the next day. I don't know if I'm making sense. --Sumple 05:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. But I do really hope if you could edit the article to let people know that traditionally, Chinese festivals are celebrated in our modern 11pm and not midnight. I think as a Chinese (although I'm not from China), it is important for us to teach people the accurate way of measuring time according to Chinese customs. Even many Chinese I know today do not know of this unique way of measuring time by Chinese customs. It would be great to spread this knowledge around wikipedia. -Gerald

Monotonic year confusion

I understand that continuously-increasing year numbers are not widely used in China, and that while a system has been proposed, there is some debate about its precise correspondence. One part of our article (under "The stem-branch cycle") states that the epoch is 2698 BCE (or maybe 2697 BCE) and that 4703 began in early 2005 (or maybe 2006). However, the page http://www.chinapage.com/newyear.html has it the other way around, suggesting that the majority view is that 2006 is 4703 (with a footnote suggesting that "a few" believe it's the other way). Similary, the authoritative-looking page http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/calendar/chinese.shtml suggests an epoch and chronology which would end up assigning 4703 (or maybe 4643, 60 years off) to 2006. That page also mentions the possibility of a 1-year discrepancy, though it also suggests that it's to compensate for the presence or absence of the year 0 in the corresponding Western calendar, i.e. that it would not end up changing the correspondence to 2006 (or any positive western year) after all. Furthermore, that page describes a minority, maybe off-by-1 interpretation due to Sun Yat-sen and mentions the same San Francisco Chinatown connection that our article does, but it seems to consider it to be the distinctly minority view. Also, by the stem/branch system, 4703 is year 23 of the current 60-year cycle which is 3/11 = Fire 1 / Dog = 丙 戌 = bingxu, and since we know that 2006 is the year of the dog, it seems this correspondence is much more solid. Finally, elsewhere in our article (under "Legendary beginnings") 2006 is equated with either 4643 or 4703.

So if I'm interpreting those references correctly (and if they're accurate) I believe that our article should mention that continuously-increasing year numbers are not widely used, but should otherwise be consistent in assigning 4703 to 2006, with a disclaimer and explanation about the possible 1- and 60-year discrepancies.

I'll make this change in a few days, but since I'm not knowledgeable about this stuff I thought I'd mention it here first in case anyone has an opposing view.

Steve Summit (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds alright to me. Since very few ppl use the continuously numbered epoch anyway, I doubt there will be any objections to your proposed edits. --Sumple 11:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, done. See new section Continuously-numbered years and new table under Correspondence between systems. -- Steve Summit (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have lived in San Francisco, California all my life and I would like to point out that Chinese Americans in the United States use the epoch of 2698 BCE as the basis for numbering the years, and therefore Gregorian 2006 is numbered as 4704 and so forth for subsequent years. Type "Chinese New Year 4707" into Google and you will see that all the hits that come up refer to events occuring in January of 2009. Keraunos (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know if other Overseas Chinese communities all also use the same system for numbering the years as Chinese Americans do? Keraunos (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Something about this used to be in the article. Several epochs for continuously numbered years were used by Chinese Republican newspapers during the first decade of the 20th century. At the time, China was under the weakened control of the Empress Dowager Cixi, but the newspapers wanted to abolish the emperor system so did not want to use the official Era Name system. One of these epochs was 2698 BCE which was officially used by Sun Yat-sen to refer to the last year of the imperial calendar when he stated that its last day was the day before January 1, 1912. It has apparently been adopted by most overseas Chinese communities with the possible exception of those in southeast Asia. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Republic of China Era

This article seems to neglet the calendrical system used by the ROC, where in official business, the year is recorded as the XXth year of the Republic Era (民國XX年). I propose that this be added to this article. Davidhaha 16:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I rembmer writing about it. It should be in the "regnal years" section. --Sumple (Talk) 23:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep it's there:

"This system continued until the Republic of China, which counted years as Years of the Republic, beginning in 1912. Thus, 1912 is the 1st Year of the Republic, and 1948 the 37th. This system is still used for official purposes in Taiwan. For the rest of China, in 1949 the People's Republic of China chose to use the Common Era system (equivalently, AD/BC system), in line with international standards." --Sumple (Talk) 23:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Chinese zodiac

The meaning of word 'zodiac' ... In lots of paragraphs, the word 'zodiac' means the 'Western astrological sign' or the principle solar term..

However, 'The Chinese zodiac' paragraph use the same word to describe the twelve animals...

This need some cleanup.. -- 219.79.68.20 15:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It was already pointed out above quite a while ago that '"Western astrological sign" is getting mixed up with "constellation" in the description of Chinese month sequencing'. For instance, I think the heading in the table under "Calendar rules" should be "constellation" or "zodiac constellation", not "zodiac sign"; all the links in that column point to the articles on the constellations, not to the articles on the astrological signs. Joriki 05:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the link to Scorpius, which pointed to Scorpius (the constellation) but said "Scorpio" (the sign), and to Capricornus, which had been a redirect. Joriki 05:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

section "celestial movement and seasons"

or whatever its called. how much does that have to do with the calendar? i propose deleting it. it also seems a bit verbose and after reading it, i didn't really get what point it was trying to make. it seems just a collection of quotes from ancient chinese literature that talks about astronomy. --Sumple (Talk) 11:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the section here because it does not directly relate to the Chinese calendar, and probably belongs on a page about Chinese astronomy or astrology. I've kept it on the talk page because it's a valuable collection, and should be added to the appropriate page:

Some celestial movements were widely used by the ancient farmers to determine the seasons before solar calendar came along. Some well known signs are listed below ^{[citation needed]}

• 斗柄東指，天下皆春； 斗柄南指，天下皆夏； 斗柄西指，天下皆秋； 斗柄北指，天下皆冬 (source: Heguanzi 鵑冠子)

If the handle of Big Dipper points to east, the spring has arrived. Then it will point to south in summer, west in autumn and north in winter.

• 農祥晨正 (source: Guo Yu 國语) [1]:

If a farmer steps out of the main entrance of the house (most likely facing south) in the morning, and sees the four stars in the Fong Xu (房宿) line up vertically into a straight line, spring has arrived and he can prepare to sow.

• 孟春之月，日在營室 (source: Liji: Yueling 禮月令)

In the first month of spring, the sun is in Yingshi.

• 孟春之月，旦，尾中 At dawn during the first month of spring, lunar lodge Wei is on the meridian.

• 季春之月，旦，牽牛中; 仲秋之月，昏，牽牛中 (source: Liji: Yueling 禮月令)

At dawn during the last month of spring and at dusk during the second month of autumn, lunar lodge Qianniu is on the meridian.

• 孟夏之月，旦，婺女中 (source: Li Yueling 禮月令)

At dawn during the first month of summer, lunar lodge Xunü is on the meridian.

• 仲夏之月，旦，危中；孟冬之月，昏，危中 (source: Liji: Yueling 禮月令)

At dawn during the second month of summer and at the dusk during the first month of winter, lunar lodge Wei is on the meridian.

• 仲夏之月，昏，亢中 (source: Liji: Yueling 禮月令)

At dusk during the second month of summer, lunar lodge Kang Xu is on the meridian.

• 七月流火 (source: Shi Jing: Bin Feng: Qi Yue《诗经·豳风·七月》)[2][3]:

"In the 7th month, the Fire Star (Antares) drifts lower."

定之方中，作于楚宫 (source: Shi Jing: Yong Feng 诗墉风) In the Spring and Autumn period (春秋 770BC-476BC), "when lunar lodge Shi (室宿) was just on the meridian, they built the Chu Hall."

• 季秋之月，昏，虚中 (source: Liji: Yueling 禮月令)
• 宵中星虚，以殷仲秋 (source: Shang Shu Yao Dian 尚书尧典)

At dusk during the last month of autumn, lunar lodge Xu is on the meridian.

• 仲冬之月，昏，東壁中 (source: Liji: Yueling 禮月令)

At dusk during the second month of winter, lunar lodge Bi is on the meridian.

• 季冬之月，旦，氐中 (source: Liji: Yueling 禮月令)

At dawn during the last month of winter, lunar lodge Di is on the meridian.

Sumple (Talk) 12:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

These things are primarily related to Chinese seasons, even though I cannot say that they have nothing to do with the calendar.--Jusjih 15:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

citation needed: "Sino-Uighur"

"(or Sino-Uighur)"
I have never seen this term used to describe used in reference to a calendrical system. And it doesn't google. --CiteCop 17:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Google Chinese-Uighur. You'll find The Chinese-Uighur calendar as described in Islamic sources. — Joe Kress 06:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

weeks

The wikipedia article week states that the Chinese adopted a 7 day week c.600 AD, without specifically stating an origin. The Chinese calendar article states that the 7 day week was introduced in the 16th century by the Jesuits. Which is correct, and what was in place prior to the 7 day week? TomFooolery 22:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates convert dates into Chinese calendar

{{Chinese calendar}} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yao Ziyuan (talk • contribs) 15:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Named Months

I see names for months at...

• Chinese Astrology Online

What's that all about?

-- Sophroniscus 22:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Each Chinese month has not only one name. Many months have five or six names. But month names are rare used. The only common used month names are 正月 and 腊月, 冬月 sometimes also used, but rare. Other month names are absolutely rare used. HELLO, WORLD! 22:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Question?

Which Zodiac Year was A.D 638? All the internet thingies tell me which year was which only up to 1900. I'm looking for an animal name like "Year of the [blank]". Respond to my talk page cuz I'm gonna forget about this discussion page. -Working for Him 17:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(Copied to User talk:Working for Him#Chinese calendar) According to Calendrica, AD 638 (after 24 January) was a wu-xu year, year 35 of the 60-year cycle according to Chinese calendars, hence a Yang Earth Dog year according to Chinese astrology. Obviously, either Chinese calendar needs a 60-year cycle with pinyin forms of the earthly branches and heavenly stems or the existing table in Chinese astrology needs them. — Joe Kress 23:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sexagenary cycle has a complete cycle with pinyin forms. — Joe Kress 00:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Need help

Can somebody tell me how to describe "4. lunar month of 252 AD" (Sun Quan's death)? Sarazyn • 丁人LK • DE 20:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Basis of solar terms

Are the solar terms based on the sidereal year or the tropical year? I'm guessing, from the references to equinoxes and solstices, that it's the tropical year, but the references to the zodiac signs and phrases like Every other jiéqì of the Chinese solar year is equivalent to an entry of the sun into a sign of the tropical zodiac (a principal term or cusp). makes it sound like it's based on the sideral year. Nik42 08:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I found the answer in one of the references. It is indeed the tropical year Nik42 10:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Song of Solar Terms"

I've moved the "Song of Solar Terms" into the Solar term article where I feel is more specific to Solar Terms than the calendar in general. 60.50.255.96 (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Anno Flavi Imperatoris Sinarum vs. Anno Domini

According to one of the numbering systems that has been in use, 2009 AD is 4707 in the year of Huandi, or the Yellow Emperor. Since we have the Latin epithet 'Anno Domini', or 'AD', for the Gregorian calendar, we also need a Latin parallel for the Chinese lunisolar calendar. Let's call it 'Anno Flavi Imperatoris Sinarum', or 'AFIS', which literally means "in the year of the Yellow Emperor of China". Therefore, 2009 AD is also 4707 AFIS. --Roland 04:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Before this can be included in the article you must provide a reliable source where its use is mentioned. Nothing that you or any other editor invents is allowed in a Wikipedia article without citation. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessarily defensive! Did I say I want to put this in? Your extra energy can be spent on those religious items. --Roland 02:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My misinterpretation was due to the Wikipedia guideline that an article's talk page can only be used for improving the article, thus I assumed you wanted this in the article. A talk page cannot be used to discuss the subject of the article per WP:Talk page guidelines. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

i. The idea's a western imposition. Just like how the Romans never actually used AUC, the Chinese actually dated (badly — that is, using inclusive counting and a lunar calendar with irregular intercalation) from the eras of their emperors, so much so that if you could find any historical Chinese use of the Yellow Emperor Era, that would be worth putting in the article. Afaik, they just periodically used the Yellow Emperor to align the era years without actually employing it.

ii. The stem-&-branch system could be configured into an Olympiad-style format or simply named. I'm sure some Jesuit or scholar explained the system in Latin (I.i, I.ii, I.iii... or animals plus the hours prima, secunda, tertia...?) but wouldn't know where to look for a source other than asking very nicely at the Vatican.

iii. The RoC established a permanent era name for the Chinese Republic now known as the Minguo calendar. Since this started in 1912, 2011 is in fact 民國百年. Since the French Republic actually called theirs the "Era of Liberty", AR or RS is still available for annō Reīpūblicæ [Sinārum] but of course the Chinese don't have much interest in Latin and just use a prefixed ROC when they're translating the idea. So this is the year ROC 100.

iv. As far as I know, the PRC has always used the 公元 (AD) system since assuming power in 1949. (The Minguo system above already uses the word "People" that differentiates their name from the ROC, plus it made things easier for the Russians.) You could make up a system where you dated a Commie Era (annō [Reīpūblicæ Populāris] Sinārum) from 1 October 1949 (中国62年, AS 62), dated "regnal years" from the paramount leaders (胡锦涛7年, annō Hu 7), or made up "regnal eras" from the announcements of their favored programs (河蟹6年, annō Harmōnīæ 6), but you'd be the only one knowing what you were talking about.

v. Your Latin needs work. Sinārum's "the Chinese". Contemporary Latin doesn't usually translate foreign names much (annō Huangdi or Huangdiī). Even if you did, in this case Latin would strongly prefer to see the adjective subordinate to the noun (Imperātor Flāvus, not flāvus imperātor) unless you're turning flāvus into the name Flavius. (And of course, Emperor Flavius has its own problems.) French and Italian both prefer to call the guy after a different word for yellow (galbinus) with somewhat less pleasant associations. Turn that into a noun and you've got Emperor Galba. (Although I'm curious if the secondary meaning of effeminate came before or after him. Further, the Yellow Emperor has been credited with introducing homo/bisexuality into China, though people don't really like to talk about that part.)

Regardless, Latin and Chinese and English all prefer shorter abbreviations than the one you're using. Rather than talk about the "Yellow Year" (especially in China, where "yellow" is a synonym for "perv"), they'd just call it the Chinese Era (中元, annō Sinārum or Sinæ). If anyone used it. Which they don't. ;) — LlywelynII 02:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoa. I stand corrected. Joe's link below shows that some Chinatown associations do use it. You should try to talk them into classing it up by adopting more Latin. Of course, they just say Lunar Year and annō Lūnæ doesn't work at all... lūnārī? lūnāticō? lūnāticōrum?

If we're thinking serious proposals, "Year of the Han" or "Year of the Hua" would probably be best since they supposedly date from Huangdi's union of the Jiang and Ji tribes, but they run into the same AH problems "Year of Huangdi" does. Back to AS? — LlywelynII 03:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

10 and 12 year cycles

WHY has the administration of Wikipedia allowed the structure of this calendar to be totally erased saying nothing about 10 year cycle and 12 year cycle listed by names. Instead a puzzle is charted as a very incompetent sample of the calendar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.120.119 (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sexagenary cycle lists both the 10 Celestial stems and the 12 Earthly Branches, as well as a four full 60-year cycles around the present (1804–2043). — Joe Kress (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Continuous Year

The continuous year such as 4701, 4702 are never used by Chinese today. It was invented by Tongmenghui. After the ROC is found, they throw it to the garbage can imediatly.--刻意(Kèyì) 02:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your statement is incomplete. Republican newspapers used at least two continuous year numbering systems differing by over a thousand years around 1905. In 1912, Sun Yat-sen had to decide which one he should use to identify the preceding lunar year that was prematurely terminated when the ROC announced the adoption of the Gregorian calendar on January 1. Futhermore, two other continuous numbering systems are currently in use by Western scholars, both based on the 60-year cycle, that were used as early as the mid-19th century. None of the three are used in China, but all three are used outside of China. The one selected by Sun Yat-sen is currently used by many/most "Chinatowns" in English-speaking countries, such as San Francisco's Chinatown, where Lunar Year 4708 began on 14 February 2010.[4] — Joe Kress (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Month 11 rule is not always true

"The sun always passes the winter solstice (enters Capricorn) during month 11."

After using the true motion of the sun, how can the sun always pass the winter solstice during month 11? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.131.122.208 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 February 2011

Month 11 is the base month of the Chinese calendar—the winter solstice (270°) must be in month 11, even if that causes other principal terms to be in the wrong month, for example, that may prevent yǔshuǐ (330°) from being in month 1. During most years all regular months contain a single principal term and any month without a principal term is an intercalary or leap month. However, during a few rare years two principal terms will be within a single month (usually in the first and last days of that month), which will prevent some neighboring months, like month 1, from containing their usual or "assigned" principal term (the next time this occurs will be in 2033–34). The true motion of the sun causes this aberration—if the mean motion of the sun along the ecliptic were used, as it was before 1645 (before the Qing dynasty), no month could ever have two principal terms. — Joe Kress (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

How many months are there in every 19 years of the Chinese calendar? There are 235 months. But there were 236 months in the 19 years from 1966 to 1984. Why? The cause must be the rule: the winter solstice (270°) must be in month 11. Month 11 rule is not always true and 1984 was the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.131.122.209 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 17 February 2011

Answer to above:

There are not always 235 months in 19 years. That rule was given up in the 6th century.

In 1984 the solstice in China was on Dec 22, which was the 1st day of the 11th month.

The modern rule works by in effect putting an intercalary month where it is needed to make the winter solstice be in the 11th month. For example, if in 2033 you made the non-principal-term month following the 7th month intercalary, the solstice would be in the 10th month, so the (first) non-principal-term month after the solstice is made intercalary instead and there is an intercalary 11th month.Stone-turner (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the scientific or astronomical basis for the modern rule: the sun always passes the winter solstice during month 11? Month 11 rule is true for using the mean sun but not always for using the true sun.

(19x12+7)x29.5306>19x365.2422. Why 19x12+8=236? 19x12+7 is not a rule but a law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.36.190.204 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 17 February 2011

The rule ensures that the years don't drift against the seasons. It's one of many possible such rules. I'd personally prefer a rule that always places the northern summer solstice in month 5, because fewer months would then be displaced from their normal the principal term. I think month 11 is preferred because that is when as year called the sui begins. Karl (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Karl that the modern rule is due to the sui year beginning at the winter solstice. I have seen old articles that argue that month 11 is indeed the base month and not month 1, or more explicitly, that the jiéqì begin with dōngzhì (270°), not with lìchūn (315°). Although these ecliptic longitudes are based on the Western notion that 0° is the vernal equinox, I have seen lists of jiéqì that begin with dōngzhì as 0°. Nevertheless, the modern rule that dōngzhì must be in month 11 is probably that due to Liu Baolin, the former director about 1990 of the Purple Mountain Observatory near Nanjing, which is responsible for promulgating the traditional Chinese calendar. It doesn't matter which month is assigned a permanent jiéqì, if one is so defined, the Chinese calendar will not drift. — Joe Kress (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, during the Qing period the winter solstice was always in the 11th month. But the first and the second-month (equinox) primary terms were on the last days of the 12th and the 1st month respectively in 1851-52. Stone-turner (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There were only 12 new moons between the two winter solstices in 1983 and 1984. But there were 13 new moons between the two winter solstices in 1984 and 1985. Why 1984 was a leap year but 1985 was not? If the winter solstice is not in month 11 only, does the year drift against the seasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.36.190.204 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 17 February 2011

The Chinese calendar I have gives 13 months from the month of the 1983 solstice up but not including the month of the 1984 solstice. In 1984 both the new moon and the solstice were on December 22, China time. As the month starts at midnight, the solstice in in the month that started Dec 22 and so that month must be the 11th month, whatever the time of day of the new moon. Are you using data from some place that has the solstice the day before the new moon? Could you be confusing the start of the month with the time of the new moon?Stone-turner (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the rule 1984 was a leap year indeed, and 19 years with 8 leap months occurred. According to the law (7 leap months or 235 months in every 19 years) 1984 was not a leap year but 1985 was. The rule is subjective but the law objective.

A: 29.5306、30 or 29 (days/month), 365.2422/29.5306=12.368、12 or 13 (months/year)

B: 29.5306/(365.2422-29.5306x12)=2.7155、3 or 2 (years)

C: Bx7=19.0082、19 or 20 (years)

D: 29.5306x235=6939.691>365.2422x19=6939.6018、6940 or 6939 (days)

E: 6939.6018/29.5306=234.997、235 or 234 (months/19 years)

1984 calendar (according to the rule)

01 正月 330° Pisces

02 二月 0° Aries

03 三月 30° Taurus

04 四月 60° Gemini

05 五月 90° Cancer

06 六月 120° Leo

07 七月 150° Virgo

08 八月 180° Libra

09 九月 210° Scorpio

10 十月 240° Sagittarius

11 闰月

12 冬月 270° Capricorn 300° Aquarius (principal term in the wrong month)

13 腊月 330° Pisces (principal term in the wrong month)

01 正月 1985-2-20

02 二月 0° Aries

03 三月 30° Taurus

04 四月 60° Gemini

05 五月 90° Cancer

06 六月 120° Leo

07 七月 150° Virgo

08 八月 180° Libra

09 九月 210° Scorpio

10 十月 240° Sagittarius

11 冬月 270° Capricorn

12 腊月 300° Aquarius

1984 calendar (according to the law)

01 正月 330° Pisces

02 二月 0° Aries

03 三月 30° Taurus

04 四月 60° Gemini

05 五月 90° Cancer

06 六月 120° Leo

07 七月 150° Virgo

08 八月 180° Libra

09 九月 210° Scorpio

10 十月 240° Sagittarius

11 冬月

12 腊月 270° Capricorn 300° Aquarius (principal term in the wrong month)

01 正月 330° Pisces 1985-1-21

02 闰月

03 二月 0° Aries

04 三月 30° Taurus

05 四月 60° Gemini

06 五月 90° Cancer

07 六月 120° Leo

08 七月 150° Virgo

09 八月 180° Libra

10 九月 210° Scorpio

11 十月 240° Sagittarius

12 冬月 270° Capricorn

13 腊月 300° Aquarius

According to the rule there were 2 principal terms in the wrong month (dahan in month 11 and yushui in month 12), but according to the law there was one (dongzhi in month 12). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.61.77.226 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 18 February 2011

I don't know where you got that, but the official calendar 新编万年历; 1840~2050年 has the intercalary month after the 10th month, not after the 1st month. Where did you get that? It doesn't help at all in explaining where the intercalary month is. What western dates do you have for the winter 1984 solstice and the nearest new moon? You seem to think the winter solstice is on the last day of the month, not the first.Stone-turner (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I do think the winter solstice is on the first day of month 12, not the first day of month 11. 1984 mod 19 = 8, the year was not a leap year. 1985 mod 19 = 9, the year was a leap year. At the present time, the leap year should be Y mod 19 = 0、3、6、9、11、14 or 17. The year 2033 mod 19 = 0, it is a leap year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.61.77.226 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 18 February 2011

To properly sign your comment, type four tildes ~~~~ which Wikipedia will replace with your IP address (because you are not yet logged in) and the time and date at Greenwich (UTC). — Joe Kress (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

2033 calendar (270°dongzhi in month 11)

01 正月 330° yushui

02 二月 0° chunfen

03 三月 30° guyu

04 四月 60° xiaoman

05 五月 90° xiazhi

06 六月 120° dashu

07 七月 150° chushu

08 八月

09 九月 180° qiufen

10 十月 210° shuangjiang

11 冬月 240° xiaoxue 270°dongzhi

12 闰月

13 腊月 300° dahan (330° yushui)

There are 3 zhongqi in the wrong month: qiufen in month 9, shuangjiang in month 10 and xiaoxue in month 11.

2033 calendar (270°dongzhi in month 10)

01 正月 330° yushui

02 二月 0° chunfen

03 三月 30° guyu

04 四月 60° xiaoman

05 五月 90° xiazhi

06 六月 120° dashu

07 七月 150° chushu

08 闰月

09 八月 180° qiufen

10 九月 210° shuangjiang

11 十月 240° xiaoxue 270°dongzhi

12 冬月

13 腊月 300° dahan (330° yushui)

There is 1 zhongqi in the wrong month: dongzhi in monnth 10. 120.42.98.123 (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

2318-19 calendar (270° Capricorn in month 11)

01 正月 330° Pisces

02 二月 0° Aries

03 三月 30° Taurus

04 四月 60° Gemini

05 五月 90° Cancer

06 六月 120° Leo

07 七月 150° Virgo

08 八月 180° Libra

09 九月 210° Scorpio

10 十月 240° Sagittarius

11 闰月

12 冬月 270° Capricorn 300° Aquarius

13 腊月 330° Pisces

01 正月 0° Aries (The first day = 2319-2-21, zhongqi on 29 month 1 = 2319-3-21, the last day of the month = 2319-3-22)

02 二月 (The first day = 2319-3-23)

03 三月 30° Taurus

There are three zhongqi in the wrong month: 300° Aquarius in month 11, 330° Pisces in month 12 and 0° Aries in month 1.

2318-19 calendar (270° Capricorn in month 12)

01 正月 330° Pisces

02 二月 0° Aries

03 三月 30° Taurus

04 四月 60° Gemini

05 五月 90° Cancer

06 六月 120° Leo

07 七月 150° Virgo

08 八月 180° Libra

09 九月 210° Scorpio

10 十月 240° Sagittarius

11 冬月

12 腊月 270° Capricorn 300° Aquarius

01 正月 330° Pisces 2319-1-22 the first day of the month

02 二月 0° Aries

03 闰月

04 三月 30° Taurus

There are one zhongqi in the wrong month: 270° Capricorn in month 12. 61.131.122.44 (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In 1965 the first day of month 11 of the Chinese calendar was on November 23 (Julian day 2439088) and in 1984 the first day of month 11 of the Chinese calendar should be on November 23 (Julian day 2446028), 2446028 - 2439088 = 6940 (days) = 235 (months) = 19 (years), but it was one month late on December 22 (Julian day 2446057), 2446057 - 2439088 = 6969 (days) = 236 (months) = 19 years + 1 month. In 2003 the first day of 11th month of the CC was on Julian day 2452968, 2452968 - 2446028 = 6940 (days) = 235 (months) = 19 (years), 2452968 - 2446057 = 6911 (days) = 234 (months) = 19 years - 1 month, 236+234 = 470 (months) = 19 years + 1 month + 19 year - 1 month = 38 years. Solar eclipses of November 23, 1946 (Saros 122), 1965 (Saros 132) and 2003 (Saros 152) all took place on the first day of month 11 of the CC, but the solar eclipse of November 22, 1984 (Saros 142) occurred on the first day of leap month 10 of the CC. What was the cause?110.84.25.196 (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In 2014 and 2033 the first day of 11th month of the CC was on Julian day 2457014 (December 22) and is on Julian day 2463924 (November 22) respectively, 2463924 - 2457014 = 6910 (days) = 234 (months) = 19 years - 1 month. In 2052 the first day of month 11 of the CC is on Julian day 2470893, 2470893 - 2463924 = 6969 (days) = 236 (months) = 19 years + 1 month, 234 + 236 = 470 (months) = 19 years - 1 month + 19 year + 1 month = 38 years. What is the cause? It is the true motion of the sun! 61.131.122.64 (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Epoch

2012 claims to be 4708/4709 while this article claims 2012 to be 4710. Which is it? --Svip^pong 16:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't find 4708/4709 in the article 2012. The lead of this article has had "4709 (or 4649 or 4710)" for the Chinese year beginning in 2011, which is wrong. Those years apply to 2012. Also, some editor increased all years in the Correspondence between systems section, changing their epoch form 2697 BC to 2698 BC without changing the notes below the table. Three epochs are used, 2698 BC, 2697 BC, and 2637 BC as discussed in Continuously numbered years. The first epoch is used by expatriate Chinese and popularized by Sun Yat-sen, the second and third are used by those who insist that the epoch must begin at the first year of a sexagenary cycle, either the first or 61st year of Huangdi's reign according to many, but not all sources. This article was apparently standardized on 2697 BC, demoting the other two epochs. Because the Western calendar does not have a year zero, simply add the epoch to the current year. So 2012+2698=4710, 2012+2697=4709, or 2012+2637=4649. I'm updating this article appropriately, keeping the epoch 2697 BC as primary for now. — Joe Kress (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy Chinese New Year-- a fit time to discuss the topic, I suppose.

Joe, you changed the content of Sun Yat-sen's letter. While the year date remains the same, do you know which he actually said?

I wonder what the argument is for 2698 BC as opposed to 2697 BC and if the "first year" 元年 starts before or after the beginning of his reign. Historically, after seems more common. But anyway, for the article, 2697 BC, a cyclic year 1, seems better for the start of the epoch. Stone-turner (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I take Sun Yat-sen's statement from Chinese history: a manual by Endymion Porter Wilkinson, who states:

On January 2 1912, the provisional president of the provisional government, Sun Yatsen brought the confusion to an end by decreeing that the 12^th day of the 11^th lunar month of the year of the Yellow Emperor 4609 was new year's eve 1911 according to the solar (Gregorian) calendar and that January 1^st 1912 was the first day of the Republic, which would henceforth use the solar calendar and would count years succesively from 1912.

This is the only detailed description of Sun's statement that I have found. Wilkinson does not state how the decree was transmitted and some sources state that it was transmitted on January 1.

The confusion Wilkinson mentions is that least two opinions for the birth of the Yellow Emperor, 2698 BC and 2491 BC, were used in Republican newspapers (I have seen one other epoch used by another newspaper but don't remember where). I have also searched for Huangdi's epoch in books, but only those published during the 19th and early 20th centuries mention it. They usually refer to the eopch as the first year of his reign rather than his birth. None of these books count successive years from an epoch.

Western scholars started numbering sexagenary cycles during the 19th century, placing the epoch within the reign of Huangdi, the Yellow Emperor and one of the five legendary rulers, because he is reputed to have invented both a calendar and the sexagenary cycle. The year of his accession to the throne varies slightly depending on the source, ranging from 2704 BC[5] to 2688 BC,[6] but most sources place his first year at 2697 BC.[7][8][9][10] The eminent sinologist Herbert Allen Giles was a notable exception who placed the first year of Huangdi at 2698 BC in his works.[11] [12] — Joe Kress (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a confusion between the year a reign started and the first year of a reign. For example, if Huangdi started reigning in 2698 BC, according the the practice of the classic Spring and Autumn Annal and the Ming and Qin rulers, the "first year" 元年 of the epoch would have been the following 甲子 [1]year 2697 BC, and this 2697 BC is generally accepted as the "first year". But Giles, understanding this practice, wrote that 2698 BC was the "first year" for his western audience in deliberate accordance with the modern western usage rather than the normal Chinese usage. Perhaps Sun also deliberately used 2698 BC in reaction against the normal imperial usage.Stone-turner (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for misleading you, but "first year" is the terminology I used because some sources just stated a year without clarification, and I used it too often. But most sources were more specific regarding what happened during the stated year. Giles (2698 BC) and Mayers (2697 BC) both used "accession", Lister and Pott (2697 BC) used "ascended to the throne", and Macgowan (2697 BC) used "elected ... to supreme power". — Joe Kress (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking in google books at Mayers, Pt. III p. 388, for at least the Qing emperors I checked, he puts the accession year the year after the death of the previous emperor. For example, Sheng Tsu reigned 1661/2/5 to 1722/12/20, but Mayers lists his accession year as 1662 and that of She Tsung as 1723. Wen Tsung reigned from 1850/3/9 to 1861/8/22, but Mayers lists his accession year as 1851, and that of the "reigning Sovereign" as 1862. But the starts of the year names are as Mayers wrote. I could not figure out how to look inside Giles' book, but in the case of Wen Tsung, etc., does Giles use "accession" to mean the accession upon the death of the previous emperor, as 1661, 1722, 1850 and 1861, or to mean something else? If he used the actual year the reign started, as opposed to Mayers, that may account for the difference in the Yellow Emperor's accession year also. I think Mayers took the 元年 of the era 年号、or earlier, the 元年 of the reign year, to be the accession year, although it is not necessarily so. I would expect Mayers and Giles to be one year off for many other reigns also. Stone-turner (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked the list of monarchs of Mayers and Giles side-by-side, and their accession years are virtually identical from the Hia/Hsia/Xia dynasty to the Ts'ing/Ch'ing/Qing dynasty, including the four emperors of the Qing dynasty that you cite. However, the first eight of the nine rulers they list in The Age of Five Rulers differ by one year, with Giles' accessions being one year earlier than those given by Mayers. Wikipedia's List of Chinese monarchs gives the reigns of the Qing emperors as beginning during the years you cite, not the years one year later given by both Mayers and Giles. Only the reigns of Qing emperors beginning in 1616 and 1796 are the same in all three lists. The same applies to Ming emperors, with reigns beginning one year earlier in the Wikipedia list than those by Mayers and Giles except for 1368 and 1620. Most of Wikipedia's list of five emperors (rulers) have reign years that differ from those of Mayers or Giles. These legendary reigns are only given by years, never by year/month/day, so an analysis of Qing emperor 'accessions' are not really comparable to legendary ruler accessions. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble to check out Giles. I guess my theory that he consistently used actual accession years will not work. I will keep my eyes open for information about the Yellow Emperor's epoch, though.

As for the Ming and Qing cases you mentioned where the accession years and epoch 元年 are the same, I looked at them, and they can all be explained. 1368 and 1616 were the accession of dynasty founders (or usurpers), who of course would not use their rival's 年号 and in fact proclaimed their reign within the first few days of the year. In 1620, Taichang reigned only a month before his death, so his son exceptionally made the 7th through 12th months of that year his 元年 (see fn. 1 on his page). In 1796, Jiaqing's reign started on New Year's Day with the resignation of his father. I think in principle the Chinese dates should normally be used, don't you? 9 February 1796 and 1796/1/1 do not give the same information. I am not sure how it would work on Wikipedia, though. Stone-turner (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)