This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team identified the following articles relating to Time as Vital: "for which Wikipedia should have a corresponding high-quality article, and ideally a featured article." Those marked with this icon: are also considered to be Core articles, "one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have."
Their quality-scale rating as of September 2010 is listed alongside each:
The edits made on or near October 4 by Ewawer introduce errors and ambiguities. Specifically:
"The motivation for the Gregorian reform to the Julian calendar was to reverse the calendar drift since the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD..." (emphasis added) can be read to understood that the drift between the calendar and some unnamed kind of year or astronomical event is the same magnitude after the Gregorian reform as before, but the direction of the drift is opposite.
"...the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD set the relationship between the Julian calendar and the dating of Easter." Not exactly. They council set some goals, but the exact computation was not settled upon until Dionysius Exiguus some 200 years later, and that computation took considerable additional time to spread throughout all Christendom. See Computus.
"The length of the Julian calendar, the period between the vernal equinoxes, is 365.25 days, while in fact it is almost 11 minutes shorter." No calendar has a length equal to the period between vernal equinoxes because that period is not an integer number of days. This sentence is just a mess from end to end. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course the primary purpose was to "restore" the calendar to the Nicaean values, otherwise what was the purpose? Point taken re what was actually set down at Nicaea - I will revisit that at another time. However, the period of mean length of the year of 365.25 days is not mine. It was there before. I just tidied the wording up a bit by deleting repetitions of the same point.05:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
With respect to the vernal equinox falling on March 21 as it did near 325, there were two actions. One was to restore the equinox to March 21, by dropping the 10 days by making Thursday, 4 October 1582 Julian be followed by the first day of the Gregorian calendar, Friday, 15 October 1582 (or other dates in counties that adopted the new calendar later). The second action was, in every period of 400 years, to convert 3 leap years into common years. So the secular drift of the calendar with respect to the vernal equinox was, as far as the reformers could tell, eliminated. If they had reversed it they would have converted 6 leap years in each 400 year period to common years.
As for the sentence "The length of the Julian calendar, the period between the vernal equinoxes, is 365.25 days, while in fact it is almost 11 minutes shorter" the most glaring problem is that it does not say "mean length, it just says "length". Also, it would be better to say "Julian calendar year" because there are a number of lengths associated with a calendar, so it's best to be clear you're talking about the year length. Also, "Julian year" has a special meaning among astronomers, so it's best to specify calendar year. Finally, even Julius Caesar's advisers are thought to have known that the new mean calendar year length they advised was not exactly equal to the mean tropical year, so it would be more accurate to say that the mean length of the Julian calendar year was designed to better approximate the mean tropical year. Finally, the mean length of the tropical year changes over time and whether it is defined at the vernal equinox, autumnal equinox, or the modern definition. For the period 325 to 2012, the various varieties of tropical year are only different by a second or less, but some readers may be aware of the differences but not know the magnitude of the differences. Thus it would be best to cite a reliable source for "almost 11 minutes shorter" and the source should specify vernal equinox tropical year, and should specify that "almost eleven minutes" is equally applicable to 325 or 2012. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Stop promoting the calendar you created as hobby. Your IP address can be blocked and the website can be blacklisted. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
If I have got it right, it seems that on this particular cited website it is said (I quote) "the Gregorian calendar currently in major use is solar in time span, but does not revolve around the solar changes".
I must be stupid! I have no idea at all what this is supposed to mean given that the Gregorian calendar has in my own opinion always based very carefully upon the solar year action in all respects within our own world (it seems to myself that I do indeed have it right to suppose that this as here quoted from this website as here the title of which is mentioned on 15 March 2013 is not correct and indeed may be considered I am sorry to say as a complete nonsense?).
"Difference between Gregorian and Julian calendar dates" table has been edited. If we reach a year which is a Julian leap year but not a Gregorian leap year (as in 1700,1800,1900,2100), the difference will grow by 1 day when the Gregorian calendar reaches March 1. This is because that year's Gregorian calendar omits February 29 (going directly from Feb. 28 to Mar. 1), but the Julian calendar, which is behind the Gregorian to begin with, has to go through February 29 to reach March 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The intro is terrible, muddled, real BAD. All the mathematical stuff, the detailed explanation regarding leap years, etc. should be transfered to core of the article (but it's there already!). The intro needs to be streamlined and reduced to half its present length. --Lubiesque (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the article finds it odd that China keeps numbering the months. What's the problem? Isn't this better than giving stupid names? Moreover, weeks are also numbered, so Monday is simply called "weekday 1". It's really easy for learners. Besides, many children are confused and sometimes need to count in order to know which number is the month. This doesn't happen to Chinese people because of the more convenient system.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)