Talk:Sexagenary cycle

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

At least a Start class.

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 19:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

This article should be merged with Chinese astrology. ChongDae

It is fine existing as a separate article, as it is specific to it's title. Though the sexagesimal cycle is used in Chinese astrology, it is but one part. The Sexagesimal cycle is used for calendrical dates, but not necesarily always for Chinese astrology. I do not favour a merger. Dylanwhs 23:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Someone should add columns allowing for the Vietnamese pronuncications of these terms. Prouddemocrat 17:32, 11 July 2005 (EST)

Are these specifically associated with lunisolar calendars? If so, shouldn't the article link to that, at least as a "see also? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You have a good point. All traditional East Asian calendars that have used the sexagenary cycle have been lunisolar, and I don't think that the Gregorian calendar now used in East Asian countries has the sexagenary cycle applied to its years (it could, erroneously). The Tibetan calendar also uses the sexagenary cycle and is also lunisolar. My concern is with the use of at least the twelve animals in Turkey. Although I do not know that much about the old Turkish calendar, I don't think it was ever lunisolar. — Joe Kress 02:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding it as a "see also". -- Jmabel | Talk 04:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Since this page is on the Chinese sexagenary cylce, I'm wondering why all the in-text romanizations after the first section seem to be using Japanese pronunciation of the characters. Could someone who can read the Chinese add Chinese pronunciations or replace the Japanese ones? Obviously stuff like "Nihon Shoki" is fine since that's actually Japanese, but I think it would be good if the terminology were consistent about what language it's in. cmcswiggen

That info was transferred here due to merging the equivalent Japanese article with this article. The basic Chinese romanizations (ganzhi, tiangan, dizhi) are in the first paragraph, but better organization is needed. — Joe Kress 07:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How do you pronounce "sexagenary?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.166.69.56 (talk • contribs) 22 August 2006.

I hope you don't mind if I don't trouble myself to work out the IPA, and I could be wrong here, but I pronounce it sex-uh-GEN-uh-ree. That's a U.S. pronunciation; I suspect a Brit might pretty nearly omit the fourth syllable. Does someone want to work out the IPA and add it to the article? - Jmabel | Talk 00:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad Overview

The overview is vague to the point of being misleading. It's only an overview for the Japanese system, not the system as a whole, but it never mentions that. Someone who didn't recognize the Japanese transliteration of the Hanzi would likely think that the whole calendar was adopted in the 7th century, which is wrong, wrong, wrong. Elijahmeeks 15:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the Japanese pronunciation of the terms dominate the body of the article. Highly awkward. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 03:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed a verb so that the grammar was correct. anniid 07:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusing Japanese

Don't 甲子 and 庚子 have the same Japanese pronunciation? While they can use the kun readings won't it still get confusing? Ohwell32 21:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Chinese calendar dates

The Chinese new year dates are wrong for many years Davidyan74 (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Something is definitely wrong somewhere. I found 3 Wikipedia articles containing lists of new year dates:

• Chinese astrology
• Chinese calendar correspondence table
• Sexagenary cycle (this one)

Unfortunately, no two lists match exactly - and some deviations are quite large! The best bet would seem to be the Chinese astrology list, as it never disagrees with both other lists simultaneously. I wonder if an official list can be found somewhere on the Chinese internet? --Yawe (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A user updated the new year's dates to begin at either the 4th or 5th of February each year. This way, the inclusion of the calculation of intercalary months is not calculated. The Chinese calendar is lunisolar, not solar. I shall probably revert the dates back to their original format in a while if I managed to prove myself correct. Mohamed 09:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"kanototori" cycle

The Japanese cycle is called the "kanototori" cycle.98.242.74.75 (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Source info NOT reflected in article

In the “Relation to the western calendar” section of Sexagenary cycle, the text reads “The actual year commence is based on Chinese Solar calendar, always February 4 of every year.” and a source is cited. However, in that very source, it is stated that the new year is usually on the 4th or 5th of February, and gives comprehensive tables year by year of the exact date and time at which the new year begins. These are mostly on the 4th, but some are on the 5th. This same exact problem (even down to citing the same source and not following what it says) occurs on Chinese zodiac, whereas Chinese astrology and Chinese New Year show the years based on the Chinese Lunar Calendar, with the date of the new year changing by several days or even weeks each year.Qaanol (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I did not notice your contribution at first but as you said the dates change each year, in the range of 11 days in particular. This way, the inclusion of the calculation of intercalary days is not present. The Chinese calendar is lunisolar, not solar. I shall probably revert the dates back to their original format in a while if I managed to prove myself correct. Mohamed 10:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A more involved discussion is at Talk:Chinese astrology#Proposed changes to table, including a request for comment. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Improvements to article

I have rewritten the introductory paragraph, and the overview section, and have responded to two-year-old request for verifiable citations. I have covered the bare necessities of the Chinese situation up to the Han period. It would be good if someone would contribute the following additional sections: Sexagenary cycle in Japan, ... in Korea, ... in Tibet, in other places, perhaps also in contemporary folk traditions.

The mass of tables at the end of the article badly needs clearing up - I'll do it myself if their creators do not object. The table of "Ten Heavenly Stems" and "Twelve Earthly Branches" should go, as those topics have separate articles (with similar tables) of their own. The "Sexagenary Cycle" table should probably stay as is. The remarks following it need to be cleaned up or deleted, however. The endless tables correlating the sexagenary cycle with the international calendar should also go, to be replaced with two sentences describing the relationship. The "24 Cardinal Directions" image should go (or go somewhere else) since it is not connected with the sexagenary cycle.

All references to the on-line astrology web-page should go, as it is simply not a reliable source.

The final table for months and the accompanying comments make very little sense. Unless a better source can be found for it, it should go.--TheNothingNihilates (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Bad math?

The article says:

When 2008 is divided by 60 the remainder is 28.

Actually for 2008/60 I get 33.46666 -- perhaps what was meant is 60/2008, in which case I get .02988 -- can someone please clarify? I'd like to try and figure out some signs from the 19th century but can't figure out how to do it, the article is unclear. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

2008 equals 60 × 33 + 28; and 28 is the remainder. What the article says is correct. See remainder --Kusunose 04:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I see. Well, figured it out, but still not very easy for non-math people. I'm going to write a step-by-step. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Green, about your last edit on Dec. 12, you are right that "1964 / 60 = 32 + remainder" is misleading--it sounds too much like 1964/60 = 32 +44 = 76! (32 remainder 44 is short for 32+ 44/60)

However, it is wrong to say just 1964 / 60 = 32, because it isn't. The remainder is part of the division answer unless you qualify "division." You have to say "1964 / 60 = 32 with remainder 44", or " 1964 / 60 rounded down to the integer is 32", or "1964 / 60 is 32 by integral division", etc.

Actually, when you do the division on paper, you automatically get the remainder (44) as well as the (integral) quotient (32), so you don't need the extra step 1964- (60 * 32) = 44.

How about

1964 / 60 = 44 with remainder of 44 ("dividing by 60 and taking the remainder")

(to find the remainder use "1964 - (60*32) = 44")

44 = Fire Sheep…. Stone-turner (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. What you wrote above is complicated and confusing. "1964 / 60 = 44 with remainder of 44" only makes sense if your an experience math person capable of parsing the language. The example as currently written in the article is written for non-math people, straight-forward and easy for anyone to understand and follow, it doesn't assume familiarity with the concept of "remainder". Honestly, when I see the word "remainder" I think of a very different concept than the mathematical one. Your obviously a math person but most people are not. It took me 30 minutes last night to piece together all the clues to figure out how to do it, I've never in my life run into the math concept of "remainder" (or I have long since forgotten how), I can assure you that is true for most people. And reading the remainder article was not easy either. Just keep the example simple for anyone to follow and don't force them to do difficult math (though I realize it's not difficult for you or once one becomes familiar with it). Green Cardamom (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I added a note about discarding any fraction. I still can't follow your explanation when you wrote above:

1964 / 60 = 44 with remainder of 44 ("dividing by 60 and taking the remainder") (to find the remainder use "1964 - (60*32) = 44")

Alright so I divide 1964/60 and I get 32.73333 .. where did the 44 come from? Then it says to find the remainder "1964 - (60*32) = 44" .. but I can't find the remainder 44 unless I first know the 32 number, which means it's two-step process, as is currently done in the article's example. 1. First find the 32 number using division, then 2. calculate out to find the 44 number using the remainder formula. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't you at least come up with something better than "1964 / 60 = 32" or "248 / 60 = 4", because that is very confusing.Stone-turner (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I just added the note to drop any fraction. Most people will understand what's being said here, it's a simple division statement. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Formula's vs tables

The formula section is unsourced, and the formula's don't work, mathematically, that I can tell, per above. I've added an expert tag, an unsourced tag, and restored the tables back to 1804. If there are working formula's please do update that section so we can easily figure out using the formula method, but you'll need to do a better job explaining how they work and with clear examples that actually work as described. Until then please don't delete the tables.Green Cardamom (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done some rewriting on the part of calculation. There are indeed working formulas for both BC and AD years; now it is just up to providing it with more good sources. NoNews! 05:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yellow Emperor

I deleted this sentence from the history. "According to Chinese historical records, the calendar was invented by the Yellow Emperor in the year 2637 BC, the 61st year of his reign" It cited Aslaksen's paper as basis. But what Aslaksen actually writes is "Some claim that the calendar was invented by the Yellow Emperor,Huángdì (黄帝)), in 2637 BCE in the 61st year of his reign….Modern scholars consider the Yellow Emperor to be a mythological figure. So this whole discussion of ancient dates [what is year 1] is just a curiosity." But in any case, it is not relevant to the history of the cycle since the cycle was not used for dating years until the Han Dynasty. It was at first related to the location in the zodiac of the planet Jupiter during the year (Smith's paper), and so it is clear that the dates of the Yellow Emperor's rule were based on the year cycle, not visa-versa.

But when illustrating repetition, in lieu of a better date, I used his reign (not the start of the calendar) and added an explanation. Stone-turner (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)