Template talk:Year in various calendars/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


French Republican Calendar

It, along with the Julian Calendar are both historically significant and should be included. Crohall (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It can't be. How that calendar deals with leap years is underspecified, so it's generally not possible to extrapolate dates outside the period it was in use.
That's reasonable, but it should be displayed at least for years _inside_ the period it was in use. It feels decidedly odd to see e.g. 1797 list the Juche calendar and not the French Republic calendar.

—Psychonaut (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree!--Hyphantes (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I've added it. Here is the code: 

  
	----------------------------------------------------------------------
	-- French Republican calendar
	----------------------------------------------------------------------

	if year > 1792 then
		if year < 1806 then
	local revolutionary = calendar:new()
	revolutionary:setLink( 'French Republican calendar|French Revolution' )
	revolutionary:setYear( year - 1792 )
	box:addCalendar( revolutionary )
		end
	end
	if year > 1870 then
		if year < 1872 then
	local revolutionary = calendar:new()
	revolutionary:setLink( 'French Republican calendar|French Revolution' )
	revolutionary:setYear( year - 1792 )
	box:addCalendar( revolutionary )
		end
	end

Please let me know your opinions.--Hyphantes (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)--Hyphantes (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • The following discussion was originally from User talk:Mr. Stradivarius, but since it concerns more this page and especially the French Republican calendar, I think I'm doing no harm if I copy the relevant parts here:

Hi Stradivarius, thanks for fixing my code. I think, however, that the FRC should stay in the first position, as it displays only in fourteen years, during which it was the most important calendar after the Gregorian. And where you put it now it won't be noticed. Otherwise it would be necessary to add the year manually as I did in 1793. Maybe we should discuss that on the respective discussion page to reach a consensus. In the meantime I will edit the code some more, in order to have a different heading for the Paris Commune.--Hyphantes (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC) (...)

Also, you're probably right about the position of the French Revolutionary calendar, so I've left it at the top. I don't think we should have two versions of the same calendar displayed at the same time, though, so I've removed the Paris commune one. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
(...)
Regarding the Paris Commune calendar you probably didn't notice that it was limited to a single year: 1871. Since I disactivated that year for the French Revolutionary Calendar there was never a double display of the same calendar. I simply moved the Paris Commune calendar down from second position to letter P. So you actually have it twice in the list, but it displays for different years and with a different headline. You might argue that it is a waste to have a calendar for a single year and then I could reactivate that year in the FRC like it was before. But that would put it back up in second position which is justified for 1793-1805, but not for 1871. So I think my solution was the best.--Hyphantes (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
(...)
With the Paris Commune calendar, my issue is that putting code for the same calendar in twice violates the DRY principle. I don't really mind whether we put the calendar at the top or in the middle, but whichever way we do it we should only define the calendar once. If we really need to have a different location for 1871 than for the other years, it would be better to implement some kind of mechanism to reorder calendars based on the current year rather than use the same code twice. The DRY principle is also the issue I have with adding lots of if/then statements to the code. It would mean we would have to write the year calculation twice, when ideally once should be enough. I agree that it is good to have controls for errors, though. As an alternative to if/then, how about exposing the calendar-generating algorithms to other Lua modules, and then writing some test cases? Also, the Paris Commune discussion should probably happen on the template talk page as well - other editors might want a say in the matter of how important the French Revolutionary calendar might be. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
(...)
Regarding the Paris Commune year I think I can go back to your first line which included 1871. But I'll need two more if then functions to change the reading of 1871 to "Paris Commune". So the script amount will be more or less the same. Well, I actually think that my DRY-infraction was on the whole the better solution. Still undecided. The discussion page looks quite deserted, so I doubt that we may get any opinion there on such a limited matter.--Hyphantes (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
(...)
(...) As for the other stuff, if there's a consensus to change the French Revolutionary calendar location depending on the year, then I can work up the code to do it. The back-end could use a little love anyway, so it would be a good opportunity. The actual sorting would probably just be a matter of defining a custom sort function to use with Lua's table.sort function - I shouldn't think it would be too difficult. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 December 2011

I think that you could add the Tibetan calendar to the calendar list in all the years. Thank you. 216.56.2.200 (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can write the code for it, please feel free to offer it here - but looking at Tibetan calendar, it would be far too hard for me ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Declining for now. Editprotected requests should be accompanied by working code: they aren't just for suggesting features. I agree that in principle this would be an interesting addition, but having this page show up at CAT:EP for weeks / months until an implementation is available isn't appropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Tamil Calender

Hai,

Happy new year to all my Wikipedians. Here Tamil calender is missing. can you add in these? - ahamed5zal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahamed5zal (talk • contribs) 12:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Chinese zodiac

I was surprised when the Year template did not include the Chinese zodiac animals. There was already a request for this, but it was included in the Egyptian calender. I would expect the Chinese calender to include "Year of the ______" at the end of its section. I as aware that this would make the section even longer than its overextended size, but i would argue that that is necessary. — Leaches (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Julian calendar needs to be added

It will always (usually?) be the same year as the Gregorian calendar, but it should still be on this list as it is still used in some areas of the world — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 12:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

I added the Julian calendar to Template:Year in other calendars/sandbox. I tested the template changes on the years 47 BC, 46 BC, 45 BC, 1 BC, 1, 1581, 1582, 1583, 1699, 1700, 1701, 1702, 1799, 1800, 1801, 1802, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, and 2012 against Gregorian_calendar#Difference_between_Gregorian_and_Julian_calendar_dates.

Description and justification:

I copied the code from the sandbox to the main template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change. I do have another change to the template in the sandbox, this time to the first item in the template. It is incorrect to refer to all years as Gregorian, because the Gregorian calendar first took effect in 1582, and is the Proleptic Gregorian calendar in 1581 and prior years. The Julian calendar first took effect in its final form in 4 AD, and is the Proleptic Julian calendar in 3 AD and prior years. The comment to the change to the template should say "prior edit added Julian calendar; this edit corrected Gregorian calendar to be proleptic before 1582 AD and Julian calendar to be proleptic before 4 AD".
Changes not done yet: Japanese and Julian calendars (and maybe others) in years before the calendar existed should show N/A instead of blank; calendars that show negative years should have spaces around the ndash if the years are negative, and no spaces around the ndash if the years are positive.
Declining for now. Please use the sandbox to incorporate and test these features: once we have working and tested code, an editprotected request can be raised to push it to the live template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Juche Calendar

If the Minguo calendar has been added, then why not have the Juche calendar added as well? Lm2f (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I concur. The Juche calendar is in use by about the same number of people as the Minguo calendar (roughly 24 million). The conversion from Gregorian seems fairly straightforward; see Juche#Calendar and North Korean calendar for details. Years before 1912 CE should probably be rendered as "N/A", since the calendar doesn't apply to dates before its epoch. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    •  Not done: please provide a working implementation before raising editprotected requests. Happy to oblige once code has been added to the sandbox and tested. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 June 2012

The winter olympic games are scheduled to start in february of this year

Thank you

You seem to be on the wrong page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nanakshahi Calendar- Calendar of Sikh Religion

I think Nanakshahi Calendar should be added to this. Sikhism is the world's 5th largest organised religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanakshahi_calendar Theman244 (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Buddhist Calendar

Please add Buddhist Calendar under Other Calendars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.57 (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 January 2012 - Maya Long Count and Julian day number (astronomy)

in the template with the various calendars and unix time, you should include (add) what is really an absolute calendar - the age of the universe, 13.7 billion years (see wiki page for WMAP for details) otherwise it is incomplete

edit: after the Unix time, please add this line:

Age of the Universe 13730 million years to within 1% (120 million years)

note that this is the most recent (21 nov 2011) info from the official source (nr.2) here http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/ (I prefer to avoid "billion" as that has different meanings in different countries)

91.201.80.240 (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. In particular, please detail the exact code that needs to be added/changed and where. Danger High voltage! 11:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(in response to edited post) I'm not sure if that would be appropriate here, since the degree of uncertainty involved would mean that this doesn't really tell you much about individual years. But I'm open to putting it in if there's a consensus for it. Tra (Talk) 13:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that being within 120 million years of the actual year is not accurate enough to give you the exact year though the universe age is significant. What about adding the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar date? April 1, 2012, in the Long Count is 12.19.19.4.16 (GMT correlation); 13.0.0.0.0 corresponds to December 21, 2012.

 Not done: little evidence to suggest this is really a notable enough figure to include in this comparison. It isn't supposed to be comprehensive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There is little evidence that the Maya Mesoamerican Long Count calendar is notable enough to add here? That's a good one. The whole 2012 thing is based on it as well as several documentaries on Discovery Channel. You have the Bahai 168 and British regnal year 60 listed, both of which are far less notable or significant than the Maya Long Count which has cycles of 5125 years, the current one starting in 3114 BC. I suggest to add the Maya Mesoamerican Long Count calendar to the template. Could also add the Julian day (current value 2456037) which is used in all astronomy applications, and like the Maya Long Count, is more notable than Bahai or British regnal year - if the template is not supposed to be comprehensive but includes less notable stuff then it is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.201.80.240 (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  Sandstein  22:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

hello Sandstein, ok, you could add something like this (these are the Maya long count dates using the standard GMT 584283 correlation constant as in the wikipedia page Maya Mesoamerican Long Count calendar and Julian day number corresponding to beginning and end of 2012)

short answer, 2012 in maya long count is the range 12 19 19 0 5 --- 13 0 0 0 10; 2012 in Julian day (astronomy) is the range 2455927.5 --- 2456292.5;

  • maya long count= date = corresponding Julian day (astronomy)
  • 12 19 19 0 5 = 2012 jan 01 = 2455927.5
  • 13 0 0 0 0 = 2012 dec 21 = 2456282.5 (new baktun starts here - once every 5125 years)
  • 13 0 0 0 10 = 2012 dec 31 = 2456292.5
  • 13 0 0 0 11 = 2013 jan 01 = 2456293.5
  • the 5 numbers making up a maya long count date are:
  • b'ak'tun, k'atun, tun, winal, k'in;

some sample references (there are many more on the net) http://www.pauahtun.org/cgi-bin/gregmaya.py maya long count date converter http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/julian.html julian day converter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.201.80.240 (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Declining (again). This will require for a converter to be written, which is beyond the bounds of an editprotected request. You could try asking at Wikipedia:Requested templates to see if someone can do that. Once the code exists, an editprotected request can be raised to incorporate it (and I'll happily add it), but it doesn't make sense to leave this open pending someone doing all that work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Such a converter already exists in wikipedia as Template:Maya date. What should be done to icorporate it in this template ? --Frédéric Grosshans (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Will this converter be added to the template? How do we do that? Just edit the template with the code that has the Gregorian input? I feel that this should have been added by now i.e.

13.0.3.14.1 = Today's Date. If you'd like for it to be standard to the other calendars in the template that mostly show a single year, then maybe one could limit it to show the first three 20-base numbers (Baktun. Katun. Tun.), Tun would be your 360 day year numeral. Caleb Hayes

Edit request: Dab link to Regnal years of English monarchs

See also: Regnal years of English monarchs

Please edit the line 

| [[Regnal year|{{#ifeq: ...

to read 

| [[Regnal years of English monarchs|{{#ifeq: ...

to disambiguate the link labelled English (or British) regnal year. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 15:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. James086Talk 19:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Juche year (implementation)

Here's a working implementation of Juche year calculation (view the source):

The current year in the Gregorian calendar, 2024, can also be written as 113

It subtracts the year, and deals correctly with years before 1912, which are rendered as N/A. It has been properly tested, on this talk page and in the sandbox.

Please add it to the template, i.e., add the following lines after Japanese calendar: 

 |-
 | [[Juche calendar]]
 | {{#ifexpr: <noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly> > 1911 | {{#expr:{{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}-1911 }} | N/A (before 1912)}}

This has been previously requested on this talk page, but this is the first implementation proposed. Thanks. — AJF (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Done, or rather mostly done. I have tweaked your code slightly after testing it on the template sandbox and adding some test cases on the test cases page. It now handles specifying the year with |year= properly, which it didn't do before. (It was spitting out an error message if the page title wasn't a number.) Thanks for the code, though! :) Also, if anyone has a spare moment, the documentation really needs writing. At the moment the parameters are all completely undocumented. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, from the test cases page, it is apparent that the Gregorian calendar code does not work with BC values properly, so that could be a project for someone interested who has a bit of spare time. :) (This doesn't have anything to do with this particular request - it looks like this part of the template has never supported the |year= parameter for BC dates.) — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! AJF (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Igbo calendar

Please add the Nri-Igbo/Igbo calendar, 2012 is 1012/1013.

Use edit to copy code.

  • Code here

References are on the main Igbo calendar page, plus: 2010/2011 (1011th), 2008/2009 (1009th), 2008/2009 (1009th), 2004/2005 (1005th), details of the 1004th year on the official site, and so on.

Thanks. Ukabia - talk 16:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks. Ukabia - talk 21:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2013

Just some link fixes:

  • | [[Human Era|Holocene calendar]]
  • [[Iranian calendars|Iranian calendar]]
  • [[North Korean calendar|Juche calendar]]
  • [[Taiwan|ROC]]

TJ Spyke 23:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thiruvalluvar Calendar

Can Thiruvalluvar calendar be added to this  Doctor Bruno  17:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Holocene Era

Having dates numbered in the Holocene Era (which currently re-directs to the Human Era, would make my life a whole lot simpler when researching Paleoclimatology. If it can't be done on Wikipedia, would someone please contact me on my talk page and tell where I can get, or how to make, a spreadsheet that can do it. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: Catholic Anno Mundi

The Catholic creation date, 20 March 5199 BC, is very widely used in the West, and should be included. By using this calculation, 2013 is Anno Mundi 7212-7213. And since the Orthodox, Jewish, and Islamic calendars are included, it would be only fair to add the date used by 1.2 Billion Catholics worldwide. --Daniel the duck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Cite? I thought the "established" pre-reformation (that is, before there were such things as "Catholic" and "Protestant") date for the creation was in 4004 BC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
On second thought, those not actually used in calendars should be removed. That is an unusual, but possibly commonly used date; but it's not used in AM calculations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The Nuremberg Chronicle of 1493 (before the Reformation) shows 5199 BC (here is the link to the book http://www.obrasraras.usp.br/obras/000192/), as do all other Western books from that era . 4004 BC was invented in the 17th Century (Ussher Chronology), and is not widely accepted by any denomination. And it was used in AM calculations. The Roman Martyology, approved by the Popes twice, also uses 5199 BC, as do the Chronicle of Eusebius, Mary of Agreda, and Jerome when he used that date while translating the Scriptures. --Daniel the duck (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The code is on the sandbox for the template. Daniel the duck (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Do you have any modern, scholarly sources? We don't usually use primary historical documents for citations per WP:PRIMARY. (The point being that scholars have the knowledge to interpret historical documents, but ordinary Wikipedians probably don't.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Many of the calendars listed aren't "modern, scholarly". However, the Roman Martyology, which I mentioned, is considered liturgical in the Church, and thus is still current. And the Vulgate of Jerome, which also used 5199 BC, is still the official bible translation and chronology of the Church. I'm not sure if the other sources used are Primary or not, but they show that this date has been used since ancient times. Daniel the duck (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Not done: Sorry, but without any sources that pass WP:RS, I don't feel comfortable with fulfilling this edit request. I suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity for their advice - there are plenty of editors there who will know more about the subject than me and who might be able to assist you with finding sources. Also, it will help if you can add the relevant code to the template sandbox so that your change can be tested as per WP:TESTCASES. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 July 2013

II need to put down Siberian Calender, the year there is 1951.. 166.137.156.34 (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: Hi there. Could you add the relevant code to the template sandbox? If you need any help with the coding, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or you could also ask at WikiProject Templates or at the Village pump (technical). Have a look at WP:TESTCASES to see the usual process we use to update templates. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

kurdish calendar,please add

hello.please add kurdish calendar.below is the code.thank you. 

| [[Kurdish calendar]]
| {{#ifeq: {{#expr:({{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+700) > 0}} | 1 | {{#expr:{{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+699 }}–{{#expr:{{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+700 }} | {{#expr:(-1)*({{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+699)}} BP – {{#expr:(-1)*({{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+700)}} BP}}

Maged ghafary (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Please remove, unless references are given for the calendar calculation used and for the calendar usage. Also, compare article Kurdish calendar. @Mr. Stradivarius: There should be a minimum of checking prior to changing a template transcluded in thousands of pages. --WolfgangRieger (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - I checked that the code wasn't broken, but I should have checked the sources for the dates as well. Undone. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I will revert the other global "kurdish calendar"-insertions by this user. Done on bn, de, es, ja, pt, ru, simple, tr, zh. Note on talk page on fa, it. Nothing done at ar. --WolfgangRieger (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I use the ckb.wikipedia the kurdish wikipedia page for writing these codes if you see this page (http://ckb.wikipedia.org/wiki/داڕێژە:ساڵ_لە_ڕۆژژمێرەکانی_دیکە ) you will see 2012=٢٧١٢ – ٢٧١٣(2712-2713) in kurdish calendar.in the kurdish calendar page I think the kudish calendar page in english will need edit.any way i couldn't find any sources in english to prove this.

Not done: Sorry, but now that there has been an objection, we need sources before we can reinstate the edit. (Note that the sources don't have to be in English.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Does not for work for year=551 and year=645 (script errors)

{{Year in other calendars|year=551}} gives:

Template output
551 in various calendars
Gregorian calendar551
DLI
Ab urbe condita1304
Assyrian calendar5301
Balinese saka calendar472–473
Bengali calendar−42
Berber calendar1501
Buddhist calendar1095
Burmese calendar−87
Byzantine calendar6059–6060
Chinese calendar庚午年 (Metal Horse)
3248 or 3041
    — to —
辛未年 (Metal Goat)
3249 or 3042
Coptic calendar267–268
Discordian calendar1717
Ethiopian calendar543–544
Hebrew calendar4311–4312
Hindu calendars
 - Vikram Samvat607–608
 - Shaka Samvat472–473
 - Kali Yuga3651–3652
Holocene calendar10551
Iranian calendar71 BP – 70 BP
Islamic calendar73 BH – 72 BH
Javanese calendar439–440
Julian calendar551
DLI
Korean calendar2884
Minguo calendar1361 before ROC
民前1361年
Nanakshahi calendar−917
Seleucid era862/863 AG
Thai solar calendar1093–1094
Tibetan calendar阳金马年
(male Iron-Horse)
677 or 296 or −476
    — to —
阴金羊年
(female Iron-Goat)
678 or 297 or −475

Same story with year=645. The Armenian calendar (for 551) and Japanese calendar (for 645) – its year 1. See the articles 551 and 645 - Christian75 (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Frietjes fixed the first 551 bug, which was a leftover from the previous template, and I fixed the 645 one, which was entirely of my own doing. Thanks for finding them! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 September 2013

edit date of birth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.160.154 (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding 2013 in the Jewish calender

In Jewish calendar year 2013 is 5774-5775. In the Hebew alphabet it is written התשע"ד - התשע"ה

Please add.

Orit1207 (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It is already in the template under the name "Hebrew Calendar" - take a look at Hebrew calendar. If you want the template to use the Hebrew numbers, you will need to write the Lua code to add to Module:Year in other calendars that would make that possible. If we add Hebrew numbers we should probably still keep the Arabic numerals, though, as otherwise most readers won't be able to read it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Juche calendar

Please, correct the Juche date format. It is "주체NUMBER년" ("Juche" NUMBER "year", for example: 주체102년 is "2013") I would do it, but this page is semi-protected :) Oppashi (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Although this page is semi-protected, your user rights currently allow you to edit it yourself. Celestra (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I confess it honestly: I have no idea how to edit this kind of template. Oppashi (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added the code to Module:Year in other calendars/sandbox. See the test cases for examples of the output. If there are no objections to this change in a few days, then we can go ahead and update the module. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Auto collapse

I see this article 2013 and realise that the boxes on the right are too lengthy. What do you think of putting auto-collapse on this template? Thanks, New worl (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I don't think this is really allowed, per WP:COLLAPSE. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

not good at this but

I noticed in the deaths of 2013, Mandawuy Yunupingu was not included, can someone who knows what they're doing please include him in the remembered, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.65.116 (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request re: Kenji

Kenji in the template is a disambiguation term. The template needs to have Kenji (era) in its content, instead of the simple Kenji. Can someone do this, or give me instructions on how I can do it? Thanks. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I've done it. (And that should show you how for next time, too.) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
ThanX. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 03:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2014

Update the year in the box of the Gregoran calender from 2013 to 2014. No source needed. 194.230.159.202 (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: That all happens automatically, so no changes to the code need to be made. You might be seeing an old version of the page, though - try purging the page cache. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Violation of ISO 8601

ISO 8601 requires consent between the parties exchanging data to represent years outside the range 1583 to 9999. Thus, the template & module should either display an error message for input dates outside this range, or not emit hCalendar metadata for dates outside this range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs) 16:44, 7 January 2014‎ (UTC)

I don't think displaying an error message for input dates outside the range is going to work, as a lot of the calendars have specifically been designed to work outside those date ranges. Disabling the metadata for years outside the range is probably a better idea. I spot the following hCalendar classes in the code:
Should those all be removed for years outside the range? And is there anything else which needs to be changed? Also pinging User:Pigsonthewing as the user who originally requested that metadata be added.[1][2] — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Disabling vevent would be simplest; the others would then be ignored. I remain unconvinced, though that this is a significant problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
we have never said that we follow ISO 8601, so this is not an issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC).

Remove Holocene calendar

The Holocene calendar should be removed because it is not notable enough. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you say that? If it's notable enough for its own article, why not include it? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
In my view, it's one thing to have an article on a calendar about it in case someone wants to know what it is. It's another thing to include it in a fairly short list of calendars, implying there are quite a few people who already know what it is and want to know the year value. I think a useful guide to what constitutes a good short list is on page B4 of the Astronomical Almanac for the year 2011. It lists which date in 2011 was the first day of the year in 10 different calendars, and the Holocene calendar was not among them. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Does not accomodate WP:ERA

The template/module does not provide a capability to display either BC or BCE, depending on which style has been chosen for the article in accord with WP:ERA. Apparently it does not provide an ability to display AD or CE for years that are a small positive number, which might be confusing in some contexts. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Are there any articles for which this is a problem? Adding a BC/BCE option wouldn't be too difficult, but I'd like to see a need demonstrated first. The only BC usage I have seen so far is on year articles for BC years, e.g. 100 BC. Likewise for AD/CE, the positive year articles don't specify AD/CE (e.g. 5). — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I used the "What links here" tool and I didn't see any articles that are apt to be an example. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Igbo calender revisited

The Igobo year does not start in 1 January. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Do you speak Lua? If so, you can update the module yourself - it's only semi-protected. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Just about. I'll take a look. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC).
Ah, it's all good anyway. I'm maybe over nervous about the Igbo calender because of the difficulty in getting decent information abo9ut it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC).

Japanese calendar

This code appears to generate an unnecessary piping in some cases. See, for example, the calendar box in 1489, where the generated link is [[Chokyo|Chōkyō]] - a pointless piping since Chokyo redirects straight back to Chōkyō. Can this be fixed? Colonies Chris (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: fixed here. Frietjes (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Now that I understand how it works, I've done the same for Meiō. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Julian Date (JD) should be added

Julian Date (JD) - not to be confused with Julian calendar - is relevant in science, especially astronomy.

  • such as 2014: JD 2 456 658.5 - 2 457 023.5 (= Jan 1 - Dec 31) --Δεπεχε (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Anno Societatis

Could we add the Society for Creative Anachronism's Anno Societatis to the list? It is in synch with the Gregorian calendar but starts on 1 May 1966 (day 1 of A.S. 1). Urhixidur (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Remove the edit link

we should remove the 'edit' link at the bottom of the sidebar. it's not helpful. Frietjes (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

British Regnal Year error for George V

George V became King on 6 May 1910, so 1 Geo. 5 would correspond to 6 May 1910 - 5 May 1911, 2 Geo. 5 to 6 May 1911 - 5 May 1912, and so on with 1936 being 26 Geo. 5 before his death. However, this infobox does not list 1 Geo. 5 as starting until 1911, meaning George V is dated as though he became king in 1911 and thus 1936 is listed as one regnal year too low (25 Geo. 5 instead of 26). Dralwik|Have a Chat 22:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. Module:British regnal year/data should say 1910 instead of 1911. Other data may also have to be adjusted. User:Mr. Stradivarius will know what to do. He documented it but he is still active and can probably do it easier and safer. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks like that fixed the counting error. Thanks for the tip! Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I made another change to make 1936 say "26 Geo. 5" instead of "25 Geo. 5".[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015

India has its own calender named as "INDIAN NATIONAL SOLAR CALENDER". As per the same this year is "SHAK SANVAT 1936" Please add this calender in this list. Regards vivekvbhidestar@gmail.com 117.211.149.166 (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Shaka Samvat with a piped link to Indian national calendar is already listed, but the year may be off by 1. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2015y4hrrhiwee

÷

5.221.166.104 (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

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. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The opposite template?

Is a template available that does the opposite of this template?

Provide a number, and it will output the CE year corresponding to this number in other calendars (ie. if you provide 942, it will check each calendar's 942 year, and provide the equivalent AD/CE/BCE/BC year)

-- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2015

Proper year order:..... 1 BC - 0 - 1 - 2- 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 1st Day - 2nd Day - 3rd Day - 1 AD......

71.122.133.234 (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The year 0 does not exist. It goes immediately from 1 BC to 1 AD.--Hyphantes (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

collapsible

This template takes up an insane amount of screen space, and as long as it is intended as a sidebar on pages on specific calendars it should really be collapsed by default. Alternatively make it into a bottom box to avoid cluttering up the top of a page with unrelated information.

I suppose the content of the template is really a list article in its own right, and should be hosted at one place (such as "list of calendar epochs" or something) and not duplicated on each and every page on a calendar epoch. --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's intended for individual years like 1500 and has around 2800 such uses. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Year in other calendars is rather long but my skim only found six other mainspace uses: This year, This decade, This century, List of calendars, Calendar era, North Korean calendar. It was you who added a couple of them after posting here, but I see you also removed it from Gregorian calendar. That leaves North Korean calendar as the only specific calendar. I support removal from there. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
alright; transclusion in Gregorian calendar was an oddity then. Yes, I just added the template to List of calendars because that's what the template appears to present. It's fine; the state of the "year" articles is a topic unto itself, I have to say I find it questionalbe to include the full list on a page like 688 BC (as teh vast majority of calculated dates will just be anachronisms), but that's to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
I would still be grateful for an option to collapse this template, say a "year" article is developed from a skeletal list into a coherent article, in such a case the decision will be to either drop the template or collapse it to make room for pertinent material. --dab (𒁳) 13:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
"688 BC" itself is an anachronism. If a calendar has a way to specify a year then I don't see a problem in listing it. Do you know examples where this is not the case? The template is implemented in a module and I don't know Lua, but I don't see a significant need for a collapsible option unless we want to add it to more articles like articles about events in given years instead of just the year article itself. But I don't support such use. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I strongly support that we exclude the display of specific calendars in epochs when they were irrelevant (for example North Corean calendar previous to 1912) It's quite easy to achieve. I have started a discussion on the topic under Template talk:Year in other calendars#Limit display of calendars? and I would be glad to have more opinions.--Hyphantes (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Feature request: Greek Olympiads Calendar

For the years 776 BC through 394 AD (the years of the Ancient Olympic Games), could the template feature the Olympiad system (i.e. "The kth year of the nth Olympiad")? It Is Me Here t / c 21:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

per MOS:NUM#Typography we should not use superscripts for ordinals. Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, sorry about that; but otherwise, is the proposal reasonable? It Is Me Here t / c 14:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I strongly support the request. If I understood how this template works, I'd implement it myself.--Hyphantes (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The following is a first draw, but how do we get the calendar to forward only every four years? Please help, because this calendar is almost as important as ab urbe condita.--Hyphantes (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a work in progress:--Hyphantes (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the English regnal year calendar might be a model? Then we'd need a data module like this: British_regnal_year/data. If someone did the scripting, I could provide the data.--Hyphantes (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What I need now is the getOlympiad function, Who can help?--Hyphantes (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's have a look at how the data could be organized: 

-- This is the data for Module:Ancient Olympiads. 
-- It stores the number and the first year of the Olympiad and the name of the victor in the stadion race with a link to his Wikipedia article.
 
return {
    {
        numberOl = '1st',
        year = - 776,
        winner = Coroebus of Elis
    },
    {
        numberOl = '2nd',
        year = - 772,
        winner = Antimachus of Elis
    },
    {
        numberOl = '3rd',
        year = - 768,
        winner = Androclus of Messenia
    },

Let me know if this might work. Now how can we get this to display in the requested order? It should display like the following:

  • 776 BC: Ancient Greek era 1st Olympiad, victor
  • 775 BC: Ancient Greek era 1st Olympiad, year 2
  • 774 BC: Ancient Greek calendar 1st Olympiad, year 3
  • 773 BC: Ancient Greek calendar 1st Olympiad, year 4
  • 772 BC: Ancient Greek calendar 2nd Olympiad, victor
  • 771 BC: Ancient Greek calendar 2nd Olympiad, year 2
  • 770 BC: Ancient Greek calendar 2nd Olympiad, year 3
  • 769 BC: Ancient Greek calendar 2nd Olympiad, year 4
  • 768 BC: Ancient Greek calendar 3rd Olympiad, victor
  • 767 BC: Ancient Greek calendar 3rd Olympiad, year 2
  • 766 BC: Ancient Greek calendar 3rd Olympiad, year 3
  • 765 BC: Ancient Greek calendar 3rd Olympiad, year 4

--Hyphantes (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC) I've just finished the French Republican calendar template, so maybe I'll get this done too. It's a lot more complicted, though, and that's why I can still need some help with the scripting.--Hyphantes (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the British Regnal calendar there is a line with reference to a module:

local getRegnal = require( 'Module:British regnal year' ).main

This is the script: 

 
	----------------------------------------------------------------------
	-- Regnal year
	----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
	local regnal = calendar:new()
	local regnalName
	if year > 1706 then
		regnalName = 'British'
	else
		regnalName = 'English'
	end
	regnal:setLink( 'Regnal years of English monarchs', regnalName .. ' Regnal year' )
	regnal:setYear( getRegnal( year ) )
	box:addCalendar( regnal )

So we could have the following:

local getOlympiad = require( 'Module:Ancient Olympiads' ).main 

	----------------------------------------------------------------------
	-- Ancient Olympiads
	----------------------------------------------------------------------
	if year >= -776 and year < 398 then
	local ancOlympiads = calendar:new()
	ancOlympiads:setLink(
			'Ancient Greek calendar',
			'Ancient Greek era'
		)
	ancOlympiads:setYear( getOlympiad( year ) )
	box:addCalendar( ancOlympiads )
	end

This is still incomplete.

Next step will be having a look at the British module which is found here: Module:British regnal year

I shall then create: Module:Ancient Olympiads

Moreover we need: Module:Ancient Olympiads/data

You'll see them when the links gets blue.--Hyphantes (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)--Hyphantes (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I have implemented everything, but it is not working properly. Obviously, considering my inexperience, I didn't expect anything else. I'll keep on searching the errors in the script.--Hyphantes (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@It Is Me Here: Hi. In response to your request, the Greek Olympiads calendar is now working. It was an interesting work done with the precious help of User:Mr. Stradivarius. The data is complete until the 194th Olympiad and the calendar displays even the Olympic winners of the Stadion race.
The rest of the data until the year 396 is almost ready, but as it often happens, as soon as a work is in place, someone else arrives to undo it. So as soon as the first part of the calendar was online User:Pishcal has started a procedure asking to cancel all the respective Olympic winners. As long as this procedure is pending, I will not contribute anymore and if it is successful, the calendar data will probably remain incomplete. Sorry for that, but I hope you enjoy what you got for the years 776 BC to 1 BC.--Hyphantes (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Hyphantes: The articles at AfD are most likely to be merged into a list article - this means that your work isn't going to be undone, it's just going to be moved to a different place. And this wouldn't affect the usefulness of having the Ancient Olympiads in this template. Are you sure you won't reconsider? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Knowing how much work it is, I will not contribute to the merging process. Maybe you can convince User:Francois-Pier to take up his old project again, that would be a guarancy. But as long as this guarancy is uncertain, I don't know what will be of the data I submit. And since it has been threatened with cancellation I don't see no point in submitting any more of it. That may sound egoistic and it's quite sad, because I had a lot of other ideas and contributions ready. But on the other hand it leaves me more time for my other projects and at my age nothing is as precious as time.--Hyphantes (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
To editors Hyphantes and Mr. Stradivarius: Thank you very much for your work on Module:Ancient Olympiads; I have now seen it and think it is very impressive. I do not understand how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantacles of Athens undermines it, though? The Module will surely still be used, via {{Year in other calendars}}, on articles like 2 BC? It Is Me Here t / c 20:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
To editor It Is Me Here: Thanks. The calendar remains, that's quite sure, although the data is incomplete for the last centuries. What I'm trying to say is that things are interconnected. I had been working on the winners of the stadion race for quite a while when I happened to see your request. I found it an excellent idea and thought that the data I was collecting could be used for a calendar as complete as possible. So I started the project as a challenge for me and a free service to you and all the others who might appreciate it. With the help of Mr. Stradivarius I finished it in five days and as a windfall profit I even added the French Revolutionary calendar (requested somewhere else on this discussion page), the Ancient Egyptian calendar, and the Seleucid era calendar.
But when I was half through with it, a number of users arrived to tell me how I had to do it, and as their first presentation they threatened to delete the pages on the stadion winners I had just created half an hour earlier. I understand that this was initiated due to their ignorance regarding the entire project, but after I tried to explain, things remained exactly the same. The problem is that nobody seems to have the necessary competence of ancient sports and as far as I know none of them has ever done a single edit in the field. At least, since I have been working on the subject, there hasn't been any. But everybody feels free to give precious advice on how the work should be done, without considering that they don't pay me for my service and as a consequence can't expect to give me orders.
So I'll simply move on to other projects outside Wikipedia and the Greek calendar remains incomplete with lots of red links. But don't worry, because until now nobody has answered the request with the word DELETE. Most comments simply ask for a MERGE, while a user with the competence, will and time to do it is not in sight. So the invitation is just pathetic and the entire deletion request has proven totally useless, with the only tangible result of a formerly active user who salutes the community. I don't think that this is the first such case and I start to understand why Wikipedia makes no progress and is generally in decline.

A building site is one man with a shovel and five standing around shouting orders.

— Hyphantes

For my service to the city I'd deserve being honoured instead.

— Socrates

--Hyphantes (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)--Hyphantes (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you've made quite a few useful contributions to this wiki already, and it would be a shame to have you leave because of a conflict such as this. Having said that, when you're creating pages that have only two lines of content, it's probably time to stop and reconsider whether each entry actually needs an individual article, because regardless of the topic a two-line article is a really short article. I admit that I have little knowledge of the Ancient Greek Olympics, so I won't go into further detail on this; I suspect that some (if not all) of the entries do deserve an article, at the very least. Finally, I'm puzzled when you say that it's too much work to merge the pages, given that it shouldn't take much more than the amount of work needed to create them in the first place. Arcorann (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your respectful comment. I have already created a list of the winners of the stadion race, so it is not impossible and in its simple form it was quite easy. But the more complete list done by Francois-Pier would be a real challenge, because it is a huge and complex table. He submitted it in two steps, and when he added the sources with his third edit it was complete! Actually it has still some errors and not all the sources have been worked into it, but the result is certainly admirable. But what I have to say is that I could never work like that. When I start a project on Wikipedia I don't immediately know where it will take me. There are so many errors in this encyclopedia that anything I discover might distract me (like this calendar, which I hadn't planned to work on for a week). Very often I'm induced to take action after seeing a red link and I really can't see what is wrong in this if we want Wikipedia to grow and become more complete. If we hinder people from searching to fill red links, we actually stop any progress. So what I ask is some credit that the stuff I submit is useful and might also be expanded if people took a closer look.
Now I've seen that there is finally an editor who has started contributing on the stadion winners. He has added information from Pausanias in three cases and come to the conclusion that those three deserve to be kept. It took him one morning, so what will he discover tomorrow? Nothing, if we cancel the pages! In the meantime the complete list remains still a mirage, and if somebody would actually have the nerve to create it, it would be condemned to remain an awful red desert for eternity. Not to say of the Greek calendar. So why should anybody engage on a similar project?--Hyphantes (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Can't get calendar to show

I'm trying to add the Discordian calendar year, but I can't seem to get it to show up in the test previews. I used the code: 

   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   -- Discordian calendar
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   local discordian = calendar:new()
   discordian:setLink( 'Discordian calendar' )
   discordian:setYear( year + 1166 )
   box:addCalendar( discordian )

Can someone show me where I went wrong?--Auric talk 22:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your code works fine - I've just added it to the module exactly as you wrote it, and the calendar is now showing up. It must be something in the preview process that you're doing wrong. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It shows up fine for me in Module:Year in other calendars, but not in articles, which use Template:Year in other calendars.--Auric talk 23:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
It shows up for me after purging the tested articles. The addition to the module [4] said "Ethiopian calendar" in the comment. I guess it was a copy-paste error and although it isn't displayed, it can cause confusion for editors and should probably be changed. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 Done.--Auric talk 04:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about that... — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a cache or proxy problem. It sems that either Wikipedia or your proxy server stores the Wiki years pages, such as 213 BC or 1492, and updates them only once in a while, maybe in a week or so. If you edit or purge one of the pages it will immediately show up with your additions to the calendar.--Hyphantes (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Limit display of calendars?

Since the calendar box is getting bigger and bigger, there have been complaints together with the request to have it collapsed by default. I think there is an alternative to this if we start to limit our calendars to periods where they really matter. To understand what I mean, you may have a look at the recently added French Republican calendar. This calendar was in vigour only for fourteen years from 1793 to 1805 and in 1871, and therefore it is displayed in the calendar box only in those years. Currently most calendars are displayed all the time, even if they are irrelevant for a specific year and the result is N/A. This is one factor that makes the calendar box so big. For example we might ask if it is useful to have the information for the year 755 BC:

  • ab urbe condita -1 (by the way the value is wrong, it should be -2) or
  • Armenian calendar N/A.

If we suppressed some of these dates, introducing more intelligent limits to each calendar, it would make our box leaner and more relevant. The mechanism to achieve this is very easy. You can check the French Republican calendar to see how it may work, but there are also other inherent ways to reach the same goal. I start to propose a number limits here and I would like to have opinions.

  • ab urbe condita - if the word is "ab" the years previous to "urbe condita" sound a bit absurd. So these might be suppressed. If not, they need at least be corrected. I admit that I'm a bit undecided on the matter myself.
  • Armenian calendar - starts 552 AD and should be suppressed in previous years.
  • English regnal year - starts 1066 and should be suppressed in previous years.
  • Bahá'í calendar - I doubt that this calendar has any application previous to 1843. Moreover it displays the year 0 which is probably wrong.
  • Hindu calendars - Shaka Samvat starts 78 AD and has N/A for previous dates.
  • Japanese calendar - starts 645
  • Juche calendar - gives N/A for years previous to 1912
  • Julian calendar - starts 44 BC and has N/A for previous years

From what I found, it appears that most calendars contain the year 0, so we must presume that the negative values are all wrong. Opinions?--Hyphantes (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be made smaller or collapsible. The worst thing about it is thst it makes it almost impossible to add an image at the relevant position in an article without a liberal application of the {{float}}, {{align}}, {{stack}}, and/or {{clear}} templates – if it's possible at all, it's beyond my abilities. See 1040 for example and note the References section is jammed down at the bottom because the CLEAR is needed after FLOAT. and if I wanted the image to be next to the text with the text flowing around it, I have no clue how to make it happen. Fortunately 1492 has enough text that the images don't look too out of place stacked at the bottom of the bloated "Year in other calendars" template. Mojoworker (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Chinese era name

We have one for the Japanese calendar, so why not Chinese? We already have the data at List of rulers of China, which should be more than enough to populate the list back to 841 BCE.

While we're at it, someone should turn Template:ctime and its subpages into a Lua module. Arcorann (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2015

Please add Sikh calendar called nanakshai. Would be in year 540. Thanks. 69.179.161.102 (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

A Wikipedia search showed nothing but Google found the right spelling Nanakshahi calendar. It appears it's actually 547 now. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2016

Hindu calander is having their year 2031 till March. Please edit it. 110.224.5.235 (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

There are three Hindu calendars currently in the template. Which one do you mean? Also, do you have a source to back up your claim? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hindu calendars

It seems that this Template gives wrong year numbers for two of the Hindu calendars. Vikram Samvat is correct: 2016 C.E. is equivalent to 2072 - 2073 in the Vikrama era, but Shaka Samvat gives "1938 - 1939" as the equvalent in the Shaka era of 2016 C.E., which should be 1937 - 1938 instead. Probably this error is caused by not noting that Hindu calendars start with a year "zero". The epoch of the Vikrama era, 58 B.C.E. gives correctly that it is equivalent to "-1 - 0", but the epoch of the Shaka era, 78 C.E., gives wrongly "0 - 1" -- it should also have been "-1 - 0" (both eras have their epochal dates in the "spring" of India). The same kind of error is also found in Kali Yuga, which equivalent of 2016 C.E. is given as "5117 - 5118", but which should be 5116 - 5117 (the epoch of the Kali Yuga era is in 3102 B.C.E.). Compare e.g. the calendarical applet Calendrica (http://emr.cs.iit.edu/home/reingold/calendar-book/Calendrica.html), which includes all these three Hindu eras. /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.201 (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the report! This should now be fixed. If you still notice the old dates on any pages, a purge request should force the servers to update it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Module apparently broken

Always displays current year regardless of year= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibicdlcod (talk • contribs) 12:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ibicdlcod. Could you describe in some more detail where you're seeing this error, and what you expect to see? For example, if I preview the code {{year in other calendars|1066}} on any page, it says "1066 in other calendars", and if I go to the 1066 article and preview the code {{year in other calendars}}, it says "1066 in other calendars" again. I'm seeing no mention of the year 2016 when doing either of those things. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"calendars" vs. "epochs"

This template is about calendar epochs, and not about actual calendars. E.g. the "Holocene calendar" is in fact an alternative epoch used with the Julian calendar. "Ab urbe condita" is not a calendar, it is a historical epoch also used with the Julian calendar. The "2016" epoch is not the "Gregorian calendar", it is the "Dionysian epoch". In fact, most of the modern nationalist "calendars" are in fact epochs used with the Gregorian calendar. I don't want to mess with the code uninvited, but I would really appreciate if this was pointed out in some way, e.g. say "other calendar epochs" and then use pipe links instead of repeating "calendar", e.g. Armenian for Armenian calendar (although in this example, the Armenian calendar is an actual calendar; you could also try to separate epochs from actual calendars, but that's going to be more difficult). --dab (𒁳) 15:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dbachmann: You're quite welcome to mess with the code uninvited. :) I would test your edits in the module sandbox first - that way you can be sure you won't break anything. Or if you can't make head or tail of the Lua code, let me know exactly how you would like it to be changed, and I can try to translate that into code for you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

... and other calendars

Some of the other calendars in this Template are giving the idea that they have their "new year" at 1 January (gregorian), although this is not the case, because in the Template only one year number is given. This is true of the Armenian calendar (should be 1465 - 1466), the Berber calendar (should be 2965 - 2966 -- or even better 1976 - 1977 in the ancient Mauretanian provincial era, as opposed to this neologistic "Berber era"), the Burmese calendar (should be 1377 - 1378), the Korean (Dangun) calendar (should be 4348 - 4349), the Nanakshahi (Sikh) calendar (should be 547 - 548) and maybe also the Julian calendar, where 2015 - 2016 possibly would be better than "Gregorian minus 13 days" (which, of course, is correct). Some other cases are not that obvious, but would maybe be better with two year numbers also. This is true of "Ab urbe condita" (the Varronian era), which maybe should be given as 2768 - 2769 (old roman "new year" at 21 April (julian), that is 4 May (gregorian)), the Bengali calendar (should maybe be 1422 - 1423, as in the German version of this Template), the "Minguo" (Chinese republican) calendar (should maybe be 104 - 105) and the Thai solar calendar (should maybe be 2558 - 2559). I am also curious about why the Ancient Greek (Olympiad) era "disappears" at 1 C.E. (there were ancient Olympic games at Olympia at least until they were banned by the Roman emperor Theodosios I in 394 C.E.), and also why the Seleucid calendar similarily is not to be seen from 1200 C.E. (even today the Seleucid era -- the first and oldest continuous era in the world -- is used, e.g. by Yemenite Jews in Israel); but I can understand why the Ancient Egypt era is ended by 30 B.C.E. (the death of Cleopatra VII and the end of the Pharaos of Egypt). The "Seleucidischer Kalender" is given by the German version of this Template, as well as the "Französischer Revolutionskalender", which in this English version only is to be found during the years 1793 (should better be 1792) - 1805 and 1871, but in this case I can understand why. I am also missing the Japanese "Koki" (or Jimmu Tenno) era, in which we now are in 2676 (also this era is given by the German version). /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.201 (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Erik, thanks for appreciating my work on the calendars. You can easily change the end date of the Seleucid era or even completely remove it. Regarding the Ancient Greek Olympiad, I was busy implementing it, when I was stopped by the usual band of Wikicrats. You can read more about it in the section above: Template_talk:Year_in_other_calendars#Feature request: Greek Olympiads Calendar. The deletion request is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantacles of Athens. I have everything ready on my computer to bring it up to the year 394 AD, but unless the mentioned mess gets sorted out, it will stay there. The nice guys who stopped me, promised to provide by themselves and do it much better than I could ever imagine. That happened 18 months ago, but since then nobody has done a single edit on the matter.--Hyphantes (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Confusing box title and contents

This template produces a box with a title above it, similar to "AD 1 in other calendars". This is confusing. For a discussion of one case where editors were confused, see Talk:AD 1#AD, CE and (year) revisited. One problem is the template has no documentation, so it is impossible for someone who is not an experienced template programmer to understand where "AD 1" comes from, since it is not supplied as a parameter. But somehow the template gets this year. It seems to regard the Gregorian calendar and the Julian calendar as synonymous, even though this is not strictly true.

When the template is transcluded in a page about a Julian or Gregorian year, the word "other" in the box title creates an implication that the article is about a year that is neither a Julian calendar year nor a Gregorian calendar year, leaving the reader to wonder what kind of year it is.

I suggest the box title be revised to read something like "AD 1 in several calendar eras"; the entries for Gregorian and Julian have "(AD/CE era)" added, and new entries be added for "Anno Domini" and "Common Era". The same changes should be made to other templates in this family. I also suggest documentation be created to explain what this template is for and how it derives its implicit input data. I have suggested at Template talk:M1 year in topic that that template, and related templates, have documentation pages explaining their purpose and how the year to be passed to this template is determined. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC) revised 19:39 UT.

I would agree to title it "AD 1 in various calendars", link "calendars" to the Calendar era article, and merge the Gregorian and Julian entries into a single one. The module code is well documented, I don't think an extra page is required, as they would likely fall out of sync. — JFG talk 17:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
There should be no line items in the main body of the table for "Julian", "Gregorian", "AD", "Anno Domini", "CE" or "Common Era". To the extent any of these are included, they should all be part of a title box at the top, which is separate from the main table. Is the "epoch date" for the "Julian calendar" AD 1, or is it 45 BC, the first year of the Julian calendar? wbm1058 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Since the input to the template is necessarily an AD year, I agree with the concept put forward by wbm1058 that Julian, Gregorian, AD, & CE not be included in the table of years and instead be explained in a title box. At the time I suggested revising the way they appeared in the table, I had not found out how the template received the year as input.
The inventor of the Anno Domini, Dionysus Exiguus, dated it "from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ".[1]. Although Dionysus probably got the year wrong by a few years, it's clear the era begins in AD 1, not 45 BC. There is no specific date when it begins; various dates were in use when Dionysus wrote as the beginning of the year; all we can tell was that the date he presumed as the beginning of the year fell outside the range of possible Easter dates. See New Year#Historical European new year dates for some of the beginning-of-year dates that have been used in Europe, where Anno Domini first became popular.

References

  1. ^ Blackburn, B. & Holford-Strevens, L, The Oxford Companion to the Year (Oxford University Press, 2003 corrected reprinting, originally 1999) 778.
 Partly done – I just changed the box title and linked to the notion of calendar era. I didn't remove the Gregorian and Julian mentions because Gregorian is the de facto dominant calendar today, supporting our year numbering conventions, and because what is displayed under "Julian calendar" changes after 1582 to say "Gregorian minus n days". I wouldn't know how to change this without removing some educational value of this box. — JFG talk 10:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Why is Gregorian at the top? Alphabetically it should be listed between Ethiopian and Hebrew. If there is some special reason for it being listed first, then maybe it belongs in a separate title box. But when this template is listed on the AD 1 article, the calendar in use at the time, per the current lead of AD 1, is the Julian:
"The Julian calendar, which replaced the Roman calendar in 45 BC, was the calendar used by Rome in AD 1."
So when this is listed in AD 1 then the calendar in the title box should be Julian, not Gregorian. Or somehow we need to explain why the subject of the calendars sidebar is different than the subject of the article it sits on the right margin of.
I'm just thinking out loud here, perhaps playing a bit of "devil's advocate". My view on this is still in flux. wbm1058 (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, Gregorian is kind of the metric system of calendars. It's on top by dominant worldwide conventional use (at least for civil purposes) and by virtue of being the anchor calendar for all Wikipedia articles about each revolution of the Earth around the Sun.
Besides, I can't fathom for a nanosecond the confusion that would ensue from trying to match each invocation of this template to the historical era or cultural environment of the including article… This remark goes for editors, readers and coders. — JFG talk 17:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering if Gregorian is the "gold standard", whether any of the other listed calendars used it, i.e. they had adjusted their past inaccuracies to become "Gregorian calendars" with different epoch years. Looking at Buddhist calendar § Accuracy, I find an answer: "There is no known internationally concerted effort to stop this drift. Thailand has moved its "Buddhist Era" to the Gregorian calendar under the name of Thai solar calendar." So, even if other calendars adopt the Gregorian standard, they don't call their calendars Gregorian calendars, but use another name? Then we can assume that a "Gregorian calendar" always uses the AD epoch year. I suppose our Gregorian calendar would be the dominant "primary topic" Gregorian calendar, even if some other calendar did adopt the Gregorian system and call it that (e.g. the Klingon Gregorian calendar, with epoch year the year of the founding of the Klingon Empire). wbm1058 (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Whereas the Julian calendar has not always used the AD epoch. For many years prior to the middle ages, its epoch was the founding of Rome (AUC is or was another Julian calendar), or it had no epoch at all (year of consuls A and B). So, it's not quite right to imply that AD 1 in the Julian calendar only means AD 1 (Gregorian - x days?). AD 1 is also 754 AUC in the Julian calendar. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Ab urbe condita is not a calendar at all, so it's misleading to mix it in as a line-item in a table where most of the other entries are calendars. Ab urbe condita is another epoch year, like AD (founding of Rome, birth of Jesus). Ab urbe condita was first used as the epoch of the Roman calendar, was later used as the epoch of the Julian calendar, and now I suppose it's an alternative epoch of the Gregorian calendar. wbm1058 (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The proleptic Gregorian calendar can include years before AD 1. Those years can be designated 1 BC, 2 BC.... Or they can be designated 0, -1, -2.... For ceremonial purposes in the USA, the date can be written "the 23rd of November in the year of our Lord 2016, and the 240th year of independence of the United States." Jc3s5h (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: You are technically correct, however all these year numbering schemes are commonly called "calendars". Using the terms "calendar era" or "epoch" in this box would be more confusing to readers. Those who want to learn more can now click the link in the box title; I think that's sufficient. — JFG talk 17:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I understand the value of simplification applied to infoboxes, but am still concerned with possible oversimplification. Certainly where we are now is an improvement. To satisfy myself, I'm assessing the synchronization of Template:Year in other calendars with List of calendars. Presumably the template should be an abbreviated and simplified version of the list. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Minguo calendar

The Lua implementation of the Minguo calendar contains a Wikilink to the Republic of China (ROC). Unfortunately this has run foul of a change in the target page where it now redirects to Taiwan with the period when the Republic was on the mainland covered by the page Republic of China (1912–49). I believe this should be fixed either by removing the wikilink to the ROC, or by making pre-1950 references point to the 1912-1949 version.

I have created a version with the second change (below). I am an experienced programmer, but have not previously used Lua, I also could not see how to make the sandbox work so I have installed Lua and tested it at home as a stand-alone file. 

 	if year > 1949 then
 		local minguoYear = year - 1911
 		minguo:setYear( string.format( '[[Taiwan|ROC]] %d<br /><small>民國%d年</small>', minguoYear, minguoYear ) )
 	elseif year > 1911 then
 		local minguoYear = year - 1911
 		minguo:setYear( string.format( '[[Republic of China (1912-1949)|ROC]] %d<br /><small>民國%d年</small>', minguoYear, minguoYear ) )
 	else
 		local minguoYear = 1911 - year + 1
 		minguo:setYear( string.format( '%d before [[Republic of China (1912-1949)|ROC]]<br /><small>民前%d年</small>', minguoYear, minguoYear ) )
 	end
I hope this is OK Kiore (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Minguo calendar (2) Semi-protected edit request

This is a replacement for the preceding section

The Lua implementation of the Minguo calendar contains a Wikilink to the Republic of China (ROC). Unfortunately this has run foul of a change in the target page where it now redirects to Taiwan with the period when the Republic was on the mainland covered by the page Republic of China (1912–49). I believe this should be fixed either by removing the wikilink to the ROC, or by making pre-1950 references point to the 1912-1949 version.

I have created a version with the second change (below). I am an experienced programmer, but have not previously used Lua, I have tested this both in the sandbox and at home as a stand-alone file. I have added a test case for the year 1948 to test one of the years where the ROC was on the mainland. 

	local minguo = calendar:new()
	minguo:setLink( 'Minguo calendar' )
	if year > 1949 then
		local minguoYear = year - 1911
		minguo:setYear( string.format( '[[Taiwan|ROC]] %d<br /><small>民國%d年</small>', minguoYear, minguoYear ) )
	elseif year > 1911 then
		local minguoYear = year - 1911
		minguo:setYear( string.format( '[[Republic of China (1912–1949)|ROC]] %d<br /><small>民國%d年</small>', minguoYear, minguoYear ) )
	else
		local minguoYear = 1911 - year + 1
		minguo:setYear( string.format( '%d before [[Republic of China (1912–1949)|ROC]]<br /><small>民前%d年</small>', minguoYear, minguoYear ) )
	end
	box:addCalendar( minguo )

Thank you Kiore (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: This request should be made on the template's talk page. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
This is the Template's talk page. If you mean the Module's talk page, that redirects to here. Repeating request to change Module:Year in other calendars Kiore (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@Kiore: Yes, I meant the module, sorry didn't know about the redirect. Cheers, - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Cancelling request. I've changed the module myself Kiore (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Template moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 03:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


Template:Year in other calendars → Template:Year in various calendars – More appropriate title reflecting contents: listing various calendars including Gregorian, not just "others" (other than what?) Box title was recently changed to "Year in various calendar" by consensus at Template talk:Year in other calendars/Archive 3#Confusing box title and contents. — JFG talk 22:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2017

2405:205:108A:BDF2:0:0:20A3:10A5 (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

No edit will be made because no request was made by User:2405:205:108A:BDF2:0:0:20A3:10A5. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Addition: Recorded Time (RT)

Recorded Time (RT) is based on the Gregorian calendar except that the epoch is that of the world’s first known calendar, which began in 4,241 BCE.

This notation avoids all sorts of dubious biased+arbitrary epochs; monarchies, religious, national, and such. Today's year is trivial to calculate: simply add 4241 to the Gregorian year. Thus, 2017+4241=6258. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Carre (talk • contribs) 18:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we should stick to calendars that have a substantial following around the year. "Substantial" means millions of people, or more. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Source looks like WP:FRINGE. Any documented uses of this calendar? (and yes, substantial use is required) — JFG talk 19:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2017

Rezatofangchi (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

French Republican calander 225

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. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2017

2405:204:D189:2C13:6445:930C:6F88:65D3 (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done – Please specify what you wish to change in the article. — JFG talk 14:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2017

Javanese calendar from 1940-41 to 1940-42 Ozgoldebron (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ozgoldebron:  Not done There's no source here, there's no request, there's not even a complete sentence. CityOfSilver 02:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2018

The years have to be edited to reflect the new year Scifibabu (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Scifibabu: I have purged Template:Year in various calendars to make the example display "2018 in various calendars" instead of "2017 in various calendars". Is that what you wanted? If not then please be more specific and include an example link. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was mentioning that only. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scifibabu (talk • contribs) 05:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2018

After the Fall of Rome, it was the Dark Ages that had started(476AD to 1000AD). The later middle ages was after the dark ages and the beginning of knighthood (1000AD to 1300AD). It says Later middle ages started first. Please fix this error. Also, I suggest that you mention what the Dark Ages were about as well: A time of Disease, Poverty, Crime, Unemployment, Famine, etc, etc. Also, it states that Romulus Augustulus was exiled onto an island of the coast of Western Europe. We don't exactly know if tis is really true. He could've also been killed or he could've been invited to join their army because of his bravery in front of Odoacer. 2601:641:C080:4B80:6970:5FF0:B5B0:AAC2 (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of "Minguo calendar" from "Template:Year in various calendars" before AD 1912

Minguo calendar is used by Republic of China from its establishment on 1 January, AD 1912. Before AD 1912, China used traditional Chinese calendar (between 140 BC and AD 1912, China also used era names of Chinese monarchs). Thus, please delete "Minguo calendar" from "Template:Year in various calendars" before AD 1912. ~~123.113.78.173 16:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Some more calendars which "New Year" are not on 1 January, and therefore should have dual year numbers

Some of the calendars in this Template are giving the idea that they have their "New Year" at 1 January (Gregorian), although this is not the case, because in the Template only one year number is given. This is true of the Armenian calendar (should be "1468-1469"; Armenian New Year will occur on 23 July 2019, and from that date the Armenian year number will be "1469"), the Bengali calendar (should be "1425-1426"; Bengali New Year will occur on 14 April 2019 (in Bangladesh) or on 15 April 2019 (in India), and only from that date the Bengali year number will be "1426"), the "Buddhist" calendar (should be "2562-2563"; "Buddhist" New Year will occur in mid-April 2019 (different dates in different locations), and only from those dates the "Buddhist" year number will be "2563"), the Burmese calendar (should be "1380-1381"; Burmese New Year will occur on 17 April 2019, and only from that date the Burmese year number will be "1381") and the Nanakshahi (Sikh) calendar (should be "550-551"; Nanakshahi New Year will occur on 14 March 2019, and only from that date the Nanakshahi year number will be "551"). /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.201 (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Discordian calendar?

This seems to be the only "fake" calendar on the list. It seems to me as though the list is meant for widely accepted calendars rather than ones that someone just WP:MADEUPONEDAY. We have Category:Specific calendars for that. I would support its removal from here.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I would agree to remove this, but some people seem to consider this thing notable. Perhaps AfD would be best? — JFG talk 05:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of "Minguo calendar" from "Template:Year in various calendars" before AD 1912

Minguo calendar is used with Gregorian calendar by Republic of China from its establishment on 1 January, AD 1912. Before AD 1912, China used traditional Chinese calendar (between 140 BC and AD 1912, China also used era names of Chinese monarchs). Thus, please delete "Minguo calendar" from "Template:Year in various calendars" before AD 1912. ~~123.113.78.173 16:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Same proposal put forward by 123.121.168.112 at 16:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The template is not meant to explain when a particular calendar was in use. Rather, it helps compare dates expressed in various forms. This is similar to the case of the Julian calendar, which was preceded by the Roman ab urbe condita calendar. Still, we list both calendars at all times. — JFG talk 05:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with you. In fact, the template "Year in various calendars" should pay attention to when particular calendars are in use, because particular calendars are used by particular countries, particular regions and particular people in particular periods. For example, Minguo calendar is used with Gregorian calendar by Republic of China from its establishment on 1 January, AD 1912, thus the year AD 1912 in Gregorian calendar is the first year in Minguo calendar. Before AD 1912, when Minguo calendar doesn't exist, China used traditional Chinese calendar (between 140 BC and AD 1912, China also used era names of Chinese monarchs). In addition, the Ab urbe condita is used by ancient Rome from 753 BC, so the year 753 BC in Gregorian calendar is the first year in the Ab urbe condita. Before 753 BC, the Ab urbe condita doesn't exist. Thus, the template "Year in various calendars" doesn't show the Ab urbe condita before 753 BC. Julian calendar is used from 45 BC. Before 45 BC, Julian calendar doesn't exist. Thus, the template "Year in various calendars" show the year before 45 BC Julian calendar as "N/A". In conclusion, the template "Year in various calendars" shouldn't show the year before AD 1912 in Minguo calendar, or show the year before AD 1912 in Minguo calendar as "N/A". 123.121.168.112 09:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed edit: Add Unix year

The bottom of the template currently lists "Unix time" as "1546300800 – 1577836799". This is indeed the timestamp value itself, the number of seconds, but it does not include the year like every single other entry in this template. I propose adding the year conversion to the template, such that it lists 2019 AD as the Unix year of "49", as the Unix timestamp starts in 1970 AD. Aaronfranke (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The Unix timestamp is defined as "seconds since 1 January 1970", and is rarely if ever referred as a "Unix year". Either keep seconds or remove Unix time entirely. — JFG talk 03:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Add Roman numeral of Holocene Year

Today is 12024, according to the Holocene Era. Similar to Gregorian calendar, Holocene calendar might show Roman numeral. Use XMMXXIV to represent that.

—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata 12:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Roman numerals are falling out of favor. They are no longer taught in most United States primary, middle, or secondary schools, and have not been taught at the university level for several decades. So I oppose using them. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
What about the Gregorian year? It shows the Roman numeral. @.@
—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata 15:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Showing the year of the Gregorian or Julian calendar in Roman numerals is traditional. The Holocene Era is seldom used and barely worthy of inclusion in this template; it has no tradition of expressing the year in Roman numerals. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Add Julian date

I would like to have the Julian date, where the epoch is -4712–11–22 (sorry for the date format).

—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata 16:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The Julian date defines days not years, so we would have to give a range. Similarly, the Unix time defines seconds, and should probably not be here (see discussion above). — JFG talk 18:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Potential patch; remove disambiguators

Not that anyone is monitoring this talk page, either, but would it be possible to remove disambiguators from the page name or parameter; for examples, "911 (year)" gets translated to "911". Year pages are moving left and right, and we need to keep up. An initial "AD " is already removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Japanese imperial year

Should the template be expanded to include the Japanese imperial year (Kōki)? The Japanese year can be computed by adding 660 to the Gregorian year. For example, the Gregorian year 2019 corresponds to Kōki 2679. —Jencie Nasino (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The Roman Republican Calendar (Ab urbe condita)

Can the Roman Republican Calendar (Ab urbe condita) be added to this list? "Ab urbe condita ('from the founding of the City'), or Anno urbis conditae ('in the year since the City's founding'), often abbreviated as AUC, is an expression used in antiquity and by classical historians to refer to a given year in Ancient Rome. In reference to the traditional year of the foundation of Rome, 753 BC would be written AUC 1, whereas AD 1 would be AUC 754. The foundation of the Empire in 27 BC would be AUC 727."

  • AUC 1 = 753 BC
  • AUC 500 = 254 BC
  • AUC 753 = 1 BC
  • AUC 754 = AD 1
  • AUC 1000 = AD 247
  • AUC 2000 = AD 1247
  • AUC 2773 = AD 2020

Thank you 91.125.22.142 (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

There are different opinions among ancient scholars about the exact correspondence between AUC and modern notations (AD/BC or CE/BCE). Also, notation for the year is a separate issue from using the Roman Republican Calendar. If someone writes, for example, 1 January 2770 AUC, they probably mean 1 January 2017 Gregorian, or if it's meant to be the Julian calendar combined with the AUC notation, it would be 14 January 2020 (following Varro who in effect, assigned 753 BCE to the year Rome was founded. (Dershowitz & Reingold 2008, 46)
In my view, it's impossible to say what a date is today in the Roman Republican Calendar. Many calendars, such as the Julian and Gregorian, are rule based, and the rules can be applied as far into the past or future as one cares to. But the leap months in the Roman Republican Calendar were proclaimed by politicians. Once Julius Caesar established his new calendar, no new leap months were proclaimed, so the Roman Republican Calendar ceased to exist after 46 BC. Since we can't say what the dates are, we can't say if AD 2020 Gregorian contains parts of AUC 2772 & 2773, or if it's 2773 & 2774 (following Varro). Jc3s5h (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Reingold, Edward; Dershowitz, Nachum (2008). Calendrical Calculations (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-70238-0.
The Julian calendar was implemented in on 1 January 709 AUC. They did not proclaim that year to be 45 BC, because that would have been logically impossible. The AUC year-numbering system continued under the new and improved Julian Calendar. So your objections about leap days don't matter as they were absolved over 2,000 years ago by the Romans while they were still a republic (though it was refined further). So we know exactly what day the year starts and ends, it's the same as the current Julian Calendar listed on the template but with a different year.
Your other point that "Roman Republican Calendar ceased to exist after 46 BC" I do not believe that is correct as Rome had massive celebrations to mark the AUC 1000 under Philip the Arab
"Among the plethora in all the Empire’s long history, one gala particularly stands out - Rome’s 1000th birthday. The date (based on the officially accepted story of Romulus and Remus) was April 21, 1000 AUC (standing for ab urbe condita, from the city’s founding) - April 21, 248 AD by modern convention - although festivities lasted for days. It was the middle of the great Crisis of the Third Century, and the realm was suffering numerous hardships from pestilence and economic woes to enemy invasions and usurpers. Augustus Philip I (c. 204 – 249 AD) was therefore eager to distract his suffering subjects and win their approval. What better way to deflect dissatisfaction and invest immortality than host the biggest birthday bash ever?"[5]
"Although Philip reigned from 244 to 249 according to the Christian system developed several centuries after his death, according to Roman practice he came to power in 997 AUC (ab urbe condita, "from the founding of the city"). The starting date in the Roman calendar was the legendary raising of the "eternal city" of Rome, by the hands of the hero Romulus, from the banks of the Tiber River on April 21 in the year that today would be referred to as 753 BC.
Thus, the Roman millennium happened to fall during the reign of Philip, and in a state that zealously observed anniversaries of every kind, from military victories to Nero's first shave, this escaped no one's attention. To mark the occasion, Philip staged Ludi Saeculares (Centennial Games) in April, 1001 AUC (AD 248), when Rome had actually completed its first millennium and embarked upon its second. Of all the many series of games that were staged in Rome, these Ludi were the greatest. Originally conceived to be held only once a century, they were in fact held to mark great occasions whenever imperial power was able to arrange them on a suitable pretext. (Claudius had sponsored them for Rome's 800th anniversary.) In addition, however, Philip also sponsored some earlier celebrations to hasten the euphoria that many people wanted to feel—and that fueled his popularity."[6]
There's some more info with some links to sources on this reddit thread.91.125.22.142 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how I missed it, but it's already in the template 🤦‍♂️ Is there a chance that it might also be listed with Roman Numerals (It's how they would have written it) and be listed as :
  • Ab urbe condita (Roman Calendar)
  • Ab urbe condita (Roman Republican Calendar)
  • Ab urbe condita (Years since founding of Rome)
Or something of the like? Sorry for my mistake 91.125.22.142 (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Assyrian calendar

The Assyrian year begins in April. Need to add the previous year which was from January to March. yoisef yitzchok-talk, 5 Av 5780. 08:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Mesoamerican calendars

It would be great to include information from Mesoamerican cultures, e.g. the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. Is there any information about how to modify the template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.21.211.223 (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Baháʼí calendar

Hi! Please, change the name of the section "Bahá'í calendar" to Baháʼí calendar. The difference is the sign ' that was changed for the sign ʼ. erium-eriae (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Punjabi Calendar

Can someone please add the Punjabi Calendar?:••TheGr8Scorpio (Let's Talk? 🙂) 04:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Some calendars in this Template which "New Year" are not on 1 January, and therefore should have dual year numbers

Some of the calendars in this Template are giving the idea that they have their "New Year" at 1 January (Gregorian), although this is not the case, because in the Template only one year number is given. This is true of the Armenian calendar (should be "1470-1471"; Armenian New Year will occur on 22 July 2021, and from that date the Armenian year number will be "1471"), the Bengali calendar (should be "1427-1428"; Bengali New Year will occur on 14 April 2021 (in Bangladesh) or on 15 April 2021 (in India), and only from that date the Bengali year number will be "1428"), the "Buddhist" calendar (should be "2564-2565"; "Buddhist" New Year will occur in mid-April 2021 (different dates in different locations), and only from those dates the "Buddhist" year number will be "2565"), the Burmese calendar (should be "1382-1383"; Burmese New Year will occur on 15 April 2021, and only from that date the Burmese year number will be "1383") and the (Mool) Nanakshahi (Sikh) calendar (should be "552-553"; (Mool) Nanakshahi New Year will occur on 14 March 2021, and only from that date the (Mool) Nanakshahi year number will be "553"). These are the most "flagrant" cases, but also the "Ab urbe condita" (Varronian era), the modern, highly neologistic "Assyrian calendar", the Berber calendar, the (South) Korean calendar, and the "Thai solar calendar" have, at least for ordinary people in respective country, their "New Year" different from 1 January (Gregorian). /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.202 (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Julian calendar inconsistency

All calendars display their years as values, except the Julian calendar, which displays its year as a formula ("Gregorian minus 13 days"). For consistency, it should also be displayed as a value, i.e. "2008" (as of 2021). — UnladenSwallow (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Two changes requested:

Colonies Chris (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 December 2021

The piped link to Chinese sexagenary cycle introduces an unnecessary redirect. Please pipe it directly to Sexagenary cycle. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Colonies Chris (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 November 2022 (2)

it is controversial to claim that we are in the kali yuga, the Dark Age of Hindu mythology, which Savitri Devi believed that Hitler was once destined to bring to an end. (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-41757047 !!), and Kali yuga isn't a calendar! In this sense, I think it is better to remove the kali yuga! Jvbignacio9 (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. What is a calendar but a "time period", which is what the Kali Yuga article says it is by using the term "yuga", an age of world time. The article was added to this template in March 2006 and has been in the template then for more than 16 years. So it would be controversial to remove it from the template without first garnering a consensus for its omission. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 23:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 November 2022

Shaka Samvat could be renamed to Indian national calendar, following the pattern of all other calendars! It's strange to see the Indian calendar in the native language, and the others in English. Jvbignacio9 (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, seems there are the Vikram Samvat and the Kali Yuga, which consistently are not in English in this template. What other Indian calendars in English? only the Panchanga? You must refer to non-Indian calendars. Is it important that they all are in English? and if so, then why? There are many such inconsistencies in Wikipedia. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 23:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Remotion of Kali Yuga

My proposal is to start a discussion about the permanence of Kali Yuga in this template. Kali yuga is time period that does not have consensus among all people about its duration, its origin and its end. Therefore, it is controversial to say that we are in a certain year of the Kali Yuga. It is very different from a calendar which is a different kind of established and clearly defined time period. Every calendar is a time period, but not every time period is a calendar.

In many Sanskrit texts (and wikipedia) the 12,000 year duration of the Yuga Cycle was artificially inflated to an abnormally high value of 4,320,000 years by introducing a multiplication factor of “360”. However, Texts like Mahabharata and Laws of Manu, still retain the original value of the Yuga Cycle as 12,000 years. On the other hand, Savitri Devi believed that Hitler was once destined to bring to an end of Kali Yuga. Not to mention that Buddhism thinks differently. A Calendar is a chart or series of pages showing the days, weeks, and months of a particular year, or giving particular seasonal information. A time period is a length of time during which an activity occurs or a condition remains. It may be measured either in seconds or in millions of years, depending upon the nature of the activity of condition being considered.

Sources: https://www.buddhistdoor.net/features/kali-yuga/ https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-41757047 https://humansbefree.com/2021/12/kali-yuga-age-of-darkness-will-end-in-2025.html https://www.speakingtree.in/allslides/when-will-kali-yuga-end/222144

Jvbignacio9 (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 December 2022

Hello I was hoping you could add the nepalese calendar to this list as it is 2074 there atm. Thank you for your time 180.150.36.185 (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 Additional information needed: The present calendar declared as the national calendar of Nepal is Nepal Sambat. In that article we read "The Calendar era began on 20 October 879 AD, with 1142 in Nepal Sambat corresponding to the year 2021–2022 AD." So is the present year 2074 or 1142? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. There is some error message related to this module displayed in AD 1: "Lua error in Module:Year_in_various_calendars at line 903: assign to undeclared variable 'addtext'." Is anyone willing to fix that? --TadejM my talk 01:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It appears the template that is causing the problem in AD 1 is not this one, Template:Year in various calendars, but rather Template:M1 year in topic. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes and that template calls Module:Year in various calendars — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Seems to me this error was introduced by this diff in 2015! Not sure why it has only just become an issue. There must be other pages which are affected? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I've stopped it making an error message. I haven't had time to look too deeply so I don't know if the module is doing what it's supposed to do or not. Perhaps someone more familiar with the code can take a look. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing that. --TadejM my talk 13:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Return the French Republican one in the list

Why was it removed in the first place? If the obscure Minguo one is still listed, then the French Republican one should be here as well. Statskvinde (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Date of Earth?

Creation and addition of the closest known factual Global Date eg. 4,543,000,001. Would be great. I would prefer to know the real year on earth. We're off by billions anyway because pope Gregory 8th, Julian or countless others didn't know so but still said so? But ill just keep playing along for now... 2001:8003:E839:1100:756D:42A9:A585:6F26 (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You can base a year on any starting point you like, but if you go back too far things start to get strange with regards to dates within that year.
Back in April 2023 as part of writing some comedy material about the early days of DEATH, I asked ChatGPT about the length of the day around the likely dates for the origin of life on Earth.
"Q: what are some likely estimates of the length of a day on earth 3.5 billion years ago?
A: Estimating the length of a day on Earth 3.5 billion years ago is challenging, but scientists have made various attempts to determine this value based on a variety of geological and astronomical evidence. Here are some of the likely estimates of the length of a day on Earth 3.5 billion years ago:
  1. The use of sedimentary rocks to study ancient tides and tidal rhythmites suggests that the length of a day 3.5 billion years ago was likely around 18 to 20 hours.
  2. Studies of ancient stromatolites, which are layered structures formed by microbial communities, have also been used to estimate the length of a day. These studies suggest that the length of a day 3.5 billion years ago was likely around 18 hours.
  3. Another method to estimate the length of a day is by studying the fossilized remains of cyanobacteria, which have daily growth rhythms that are linked to the rotation of the Earth. These studies suggest that the length of a day 3.5 billion years ago was likely around 21 hours.
It's worth noting that these estimates are subject to some uncertainty and may vary depending on the specific methods used and the assumptions made in the calculations."
18 hour days would give a 487 day year. However you map that onto months / week days / etc would be massively confusing. Kiore (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Chinese calender

The Chinese calender's Continuous numbering is wrong. According to Chinese calendar#Continuous numbering or more detailed zh:黄帝纪元#西历对照:

Jiangsu province counted 1905 as the year 4396 (using a year 1 of 2491 BCE, and implying that 2023 CE is 4514), and the newspaper Ming Pao (明報) reckoned 1905 as 4603 (using a year 1 of 2698 BCE, and implying that 2023 CE is 4721).

The line 628-631 can be updated like zh:Special:diff/79702031 

	local year1 = year + 2697
	local year2 = year + 2698
	local year1Alt = year1 - 207
	local year2Alt = year2 - 207

Kunjinkao (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the fix. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 26 December 2023

Description of suggested change: There is bug with calculating Romans numerals in BC timeline. The problem is input year that bigger by 1 than a desireble value. Therefore, the article 1 BC shows N instead of I BC. The solution is to change code at 388 line to: 

local addaptedYear = year - 1;
gregorian.romanYear = numToRoman{ math.abs(addaptedYear) } .. (addaptedYear < 0 and ' BC' or '')

Diff:

−
gregorian.romanYear = numToRoman{ math.abs(year) } .. (year < 0 and ' BC' or '')
+
local addaptedYear = year - 1; gregorian.romanYear = numToRoman{ math.abs(addaptedYear) } .. (addaptedYear < 0 and ' BC' or '')

Repakr (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Using slightly different code so as to not cause the same imbalance for positive years. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Year_in_various_calendars/Archive_3&oldid=1199639986"