Talk:Gregorian calendar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Former featured article candidate Gregorian calendar is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
February 28, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
WikiProject Time    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject Time, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

centuries have only one date for beginning and ending.[edit]

all centuries begin on January 1st on a year that ends with '01 and ends on December 31st with a year that ends with '00. Any other way is totally 100% wrong. Thus the 20th century began with January 1, 1901, and ended on December 31, 2000. That is why it was the 20th century. because it end with 20(00). This is the 21st century, because it started on January 1, 2001 and not on January 1, 2000, because that was the beginning of the last year of the last century. This is this century and it did start on January 1, 2001 and not before. And this century will end on December 31, 2100, because it ends the year with 21(00), not with December 31, 2099. This is the 21st century and that means it ends with the year 2100. It has nothing to do with leap years of anything else. The celebration that celebrated around the world at the beginning of this century was actually a whole year way to early. The majority of people and governments just plainly goofed up. Just like this decade starts on January 1, 2011 and it ends on December 31, 2020, not 2019 like too man people are already thinking about. I wish people would get this right.Bobbyr55 (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

An unnecessary split. Done without any discussion.[edit]

Why on earth did Dbachmann singlehandedly, without any discussion, split this article, remove nearly all info on the adoption of the G.C. and create this new article Adoption of the G. C. !? An uncalled for move AFAIC, done without any consultation.--Lubiesque (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── See also Talk:Old Style and New Style dates#Duplicate articles (March 2015) -- PBS (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Last country to adopt the Gregorian calendar?[edit]

It says here that the last country to adopt the Gregorian calendar was the Soviet Union in 1929. I found articles (referred below) that mention that the Soviet Union changed to the Gregorian calendar on February 14, 1918. In fact, I found articles stating that the USSR actually abandoned the Gregorian calendar in 1929 in favour of the "Eternal Calendar" consisting of 12 months, each made up of 30 days split into six 5-day weeks. Later in 1932 they switched to 6-day weeks, only coming back to the Gregorian proper in 1940. Can someone please check these facts and edit the page? I've put some of the links below. The first one is pretty comprehensive, but the others will help you double check.

So does that make it the last country to adopt the Gregorian calendar (i.e. in 1940) or does that title pass to someone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There is certainly some confusion that needs to be sorted out. Adoption of the Gregorian calendar#Adoption in East Asia says that Russia adopted it in February 1918.
The graphical Timeline says that Russia adopted it in 1918; it also says that the Soviet Union did so in 1922. That seems wrong for starters. Russia had already converted almost 5 years before the USSR ever came into formal existence in 1922, so it's not like the USSR started out under the Julian calendar and only later switched to Gregorian. No, the pre-existing Russian change-over simply extended to the new political entity that came into existence on 30 December 1922, and that cannot be characterised as an "adoption".
Then there was the Soviet calendar, which was in use between 1929 and 1940. That means that 1929 is the year that the Soviets abandoned the Gregorian, not adopted it. (The relevance of 1930 escapes me entirely.) Whether the re-adoption counts for the purposes of saying which was the last country to make the switch, I'm not sure, but if it does count, the relevant date would be 1940, not 1929. For comparison, when the French abandoned the French Republican Calendar in 1805 after 12 years of use, and re-adopted the Gregorian, we don't quote 1805 as the date of Gregorian adoption in France. We always refer to its original adoption there in 1582. So why make an exception for the Soviet Union? The fact that the country's name and organisation changed matters not.
I prefer to say that Russia adopted the Gregorian in 1918; the Soviet interruption 1929-40 deserves a mention later in the article and a link to Soviet calendar, but let us please get the dates right. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I've been bold and made the above changes. But still feel free to discuss. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The expert on this is Joe Kress. Feel free to ping him. See Soviet calendar where he makes it clear by references to the date on the pages of e.g. Izvestia that the U.S.S.R. never stopped using the Gregorian calendar.
You're noting the difference between formal promulgation and practical implementation. I am quite, quite, quite sure that many people and communities in Italy, Poland, Spain and Portugal did not immediately switch to the Gregorian calendar on 15 October 1582, either. There would have been resistance and delays in the British switchover in 1752, particularly in their overseas colonies. Of course there will always be problems in implementing a change like this. That would be true even today, let alone in the days before instant mass communication. However, the main thing we need to focus on here is that Russia formally switched to the Gregorian in February 1918. Details of the less-than-uniform implementation of that policy can appear if they're available, but in a lower profile location in the article. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Considering that an encyclopedia article must be concise to be useful to the intended audience, I think it's OK to just mention the formal start of a change that was successful, and reduce emphasis (or even ignore) changes that were formally promulgated but weren't accepted by the populace and were later repealed.
An example of a somewhat recent change that has been slow to be accepted by the populace (and some governments) is the elimination of Greenwich Mean Time. If you ask the scientific community, they'll tell you it was renamed universal time in the 1930s. If you ask for an exact definition of GMT, they'll tell you there isn't one. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Turkey and the Gregorian calendar[edit]

In 1917 the Gregorian calendar was adopted by Turkey (Ottoman Empire) but not the Christian era. The calendar agreed with the Gregorian calendar except on the number of the year. On Dec. 6, 1925 a decision was made by the Republic of Turkey to adopt the Christian era as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ybgursey (talkcontribs) 17:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Which day is the leap day?[edit]

Is the leap day February 29 or February 25. In Roman terminology, February 24 was (and is) the sixth day before the kalends (beginning) of March. After the Julian reform, leap years were created by having two sixth day before the kalends of March, what we would call February 24 and 25. According to this article some Catholic feasts are observed according to their Roman nomanclature, as so-many days before the beginning of March, and seem to shift a day later when the modern method of counting from the beginning of the month is done.

On the other hand, secular dates that are set for the same date every year would occur on the date with the specified name, such as February 27, whether it was a leap year or not. But in the USA, I am not aware of any holidays or important national deadlines that are set for February 24 through February 28.

Another question is who is in charge? If the Catholic Church, Protestant churches, and the government all make their own choices, should we describe any one of the choices as the correct interpretation of the Gregorian calendar? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have found a source, Richards' 1998 book, which I have added to the list of references. Richards not only had his book published by Oxford university press, but also went on to write the "Calendars" chapter in the 3rd edition of the Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac.
Richards (1998, pp. 100–101) indicates the leap day was inserted between 23 and 24 February, and named bis Kal. Mart while the Julian calendar was in effect and the practice was continued when the Gregorian calendar was adopted; the Roman Catholic Church was still using the practice when Richards wrote in 1998. The Anglican Church changed to regarding February 29 as the leap day in 1662, long before adopting the Gregorian calendar.
I would like to see a definitive source as to when the Roman Catholic Church changed to regarding 29 February as the added day, but have not been able to find one.
I believe the information should be in the article since the article covers both present and past usage of the calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Leap day is the bissextile day[edit]

The evidence presented for the leap day being the 29th of February is invalid. To see why, let's start with the Catholic evidence.

It is untrue that February dates after the 23rd have been cleared of commemorations as a cursory examination of the current Martyrologium Romanum will make clear. Look under 24 February, and you will see the rules for the bissextile day stated clearly, namely, that the day is inserted then. Furthermore, an examination of the Liturgia Horarum (on page 16 of, e.g., volume 2) shows that it clearly states that one dominical letter is used up to 24 February, and another after. While most of the saints in the Martyrology have days attached to the ordinal day of the month, not all do; four saints are assigned to pridie calendas martias, which is 29 Feb in bissextile years, and 28 Feb in other years.

It is untrue that counting days as ordinals of the month implies that the leap day is added to the end rather than inserted on sexto calendas martias. To illustrate this point, consider the 366th day of the year. It occurs only in leap years, and not in other years. So do we consider it the leap day? Ridiculous! In the same way, numbering the days in order does not mean that a day is inserted between pridie calendas martias and calendis martiis. Keying celebrations of saints days to the ordinal count, or not, tells us nothing about which day is inserted; that is simply the nature of ordinals.

I would like to see a definitive source as to when the Roman Catholic Church changed to regarding 29 February as the added day, but have not been able to find one. You never will find one, for one does not exist.

An article from the City Pulse is submitted as evidence. In it, a clueless journalist asks an equally clueless "calendar expert" about the evidence. To answer the question, does the expert whip out his Martyrology? His breviary? Any primary source whatsoever? Why no. He clicks on a website! He clicks on February 29th; it's blank. Therefore...

So much for the Catholic evidence. What about the Book of Common Prayer? What does it say? Why nothing at all. "It is implied..." quoth the footnote. In other words, the footnote author has original research to conclude that ordinals imply appending a day, rather than inserting a day, when ordinals imply nothing of the sort.

So the footnote is wrong and must be removed. What about the (now unsourced) statment which it is supporting? It also must be removed.

I'll get right on it. Rwflammang (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree the information inserted by User:, who is currently blocked, involves too much hand waving to satisfy me. However, when you (User:Rwflammang) reverted with no talk page discussion and terse edit summaries, I was left with the impression that you believed February 29 was the one and only leap day, ever since 1582.
There is at least one reliable source that states that both February 29 and February 24 (or perhaps February 25) has been used as the leap day at various times. Richards (1998, p. 100–101) states:

In the Christian calendar, 29 February is the intercalcated day in leap years. Leap years were so called because, as was written in the 1604 edition of the Anglican prare book, "On every fourth year, the Sunday Letter leapeth". The years which are not leap years are generally called "common" years....

There is a subtle difference between Anglican and Roman Catholic practices concerning the leap day. In the old Roman Julian calendar, that extra day was, as we have seen, inserted between the VII Kal. Mart. and the VI Kal. Mart.—that is, between 24 and 25 February. That practice was taken over by the Roman Catholic Church and continued by the English until 1662, when the extra day was moved to a place between 28 February and 1 March, and called 29 February. All this makes little discernible difference, except that in the Roman Catholic practice the Sunday, or dominical letter, is changed after 24 February rather than after 29 February. This can never affect the date of Easter but it does lead to celebrations of the feast of St. Matthias taking place on different dates in leap years in the two Churches.

As far as which is the intercalcated day for civil purposes, I think your reasoning for not considering the 366th day of the year to be the intercalcated day applies. American Independence day is celebrated on the 185th day of the year in common years, but 186th day of the year in leap years, so the intercalcated day must be before then. If we could find well-known public celebrations or deadlines in late February, and observe if they move or not, we could demonstrate which day is the civil intercalcated day. Or we could just take Richards' word for it. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
All of this information is a better fit for the leap day article. Here it clutters up this already over long article and distracts from its salient points. Rwflammang (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It's ok to put the details in "Leap year" but the basic information about when the leap day occurs in this article, in part because it switched (for many purposes) from February 24 to February 29 around the same time the Gregorian calendar was adopted, so tends to be associated with the Gregorian calendar (although not a formal part of the change). Jc3s5h (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


I have reported this edit at WP:No original research/Noticeboard#Calendar synthesis?. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

7 months with 31 days, 4 with 30 and February's 28 (7x4) is an example of the GOD=7_4 algorithm/code[edit]

I added... The 7 months with 31 days, 4 with 30 and February's 28 (7x4) is an example of the GOD=7_4 algorithm/code.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). . PLEASE ADD!

North Korea Calendar?[edit]

There is no reference to the North Korean Calendar[1] in the infobox. (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It's under Juche calendar. If you have any other issues with the infobox go take it up on the box's talk page. Arcorann (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ North Korean Calendar. Wikipedia  Missing or empty |title= (help)

Julian calendar[edit]

Julian calendar was a kind of ancient Occidental solar calender is that right? SA 13 Bro (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sort of. It was ordered by Julius Caesar, so it is western and ancient. And it is solar. But it was still in use in Greece as an official government calendar until 1923, and it is still used by some branches of the Orthodox Church. So it is also modern. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Jc3s5h That was the GREAT men! The ancient kind of solar calender is still using at the modern time... SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2015[edit]

the text says that Eatern Orthodox churches are using the old calendar but Romania and Bulgaria are orthodox but use the gregorian calendar (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Datbubblegumdoe[talkcontribs] 02:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

England and Jan 1[edit]

The article is unclear or misleading about England's shift to "New Style Julian". It states that the change to January 1st was made (officially) in 1752, but that January 1st was regarded informally as New Year's Day, and gives an example from Samuel Pepys. So far, so good. It is left open just how far people thought of the year as starting in January, but the implication is that the January start was just an informal concept.

However, year-start on January 1st was in fact in formal (if not "official") written and printed usage in England before 1752. For example, in the London Newspaper The General Advertiser, issue number 4114 was dated Thursday December 31, 1747, and issue number 4115 was dated Friday January 1, 1748.

How general, and when, was public adoption of "New Style Julian?". Were the newspapers really living in different years from officialdom for nearly three months of every year? Could a knowledgeable contributor please clarify the article on this? Wyresider (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gregorian calendar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)