Talk:List of calendars

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Time Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Haida people#Calendar|Haida]] The anchor (#Calendar) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

The following proposed calendars should be discussed: Bob McClenon's Reformed Weekly Calendar: (http://www.go2zero.com/rwc/rwc.html) and adapted from that: Common-Civil-Calendar-and-Time (http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/calendar.html)

These are just two of various proposed leap week calendars. I've listed, linked and discussed various proposals in (http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/lweek1.htm).

The above proprosals suggest having months of 31, 30 and 30 days every three months and in 53-week years an additional one week month.

An alternative to this is to have months of 35, 28 and 28 days every three months and in 53-week years add a week to the last month. This is done by the Bonavian Civil Calendar in (http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/bonavian.html)

Also 13 months of 28 days with the leap week as a separate 7-day month has been proposed (http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/colligan.html).

Also there are numerous possible ways of defining which years have 53 weeks. Most of these make use of the fact that if there were 71 such years every 400 years, the 400 years would have exactly the same number of days as 400 Gregorian years. The only others actually proposed is 896 years with 159 years of 53 weeks and 834 years of 148 years of 53 weeks.

Karl Palmen 22 Dec 2004

Would this list make more sense as a category, so that it was always up to date? --Nantonos 16:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple categories already exist: Calendars, which includes Specific calendars, Obsolete calendars, Fictional calendars, and Proposed calendars. List of calendars is in Calendars and in its subcategory Specific calendars (I'm changing that). — Joe Kress 07:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added subheads to the "proposed" category clarifying the separate nature of the Darian Calendar (meant for far-future residents of Mars, Jupiter) and calendar reform proposals meant to be discussions about reforming the existing Gregorian calendar here on Earth in the here-and-now. The two subjects are clearly not the same, and the Darian calendar included with the others is confusing and tends to mislead readers about the nature of the others, since settlements on Mars and/or Jupiter's moons are required for the Darian Calendar to be worthwhile. Nhprman 02:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Non-Terrestrial and Universal Date (as a blank). I sadly had to use my own original research as an example external link for what such would be. Maybe the Non-Terrestrial category will be better served with a short category description of what a Non-Terrestrial date/calendar system is? If the example reference link is removed please add a category description instead and leave Universal Date if possible. And if any verifiable sources of universal and non-terrestrial calendars or date systems are found I'd appreciate if those are added. Surprisingly none exist (how can that be possible?), at least that I have managed to find so far, any assistance is welcome. And yeah, this is the original author of µDate in case you wondered. I'm fully ok if the external reference link to µDate is removed provided something else is put there instead. Trying to find more research info on calendar/date systems that are universal/non-terrestrial led me always back to my own site (frustrating), and even Wikipedia turned up nothing. (Non-Earth systems hardly count as Non-Terrestrial) I was hoping Wikipedia could provide research info and links to further improve my proposal before final submission to the scientific community, upon which time a proper entry for µDate (or maybe then named Universal Date if I'm lucky and it's accepted), a nice Catch-21 situation here, how to compare against other systems if none exist before?. Heh!-—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.112.22 (talk) 20:42, 3 May, 2007

What makes the discordian calendar fictional, exactly? Or any of them? If people use it, it's real... right? And I'm sure there are people out there who use star wars and middle earth calendars. PopeJaimie 23:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But who actually uses the Discordian calendar? Can anyone make the claim that there is significant use of that calendar? I think the comparison with Star Wars and Middle Earth is a good one. Discoridianism is a parody religion and fictional. I doubt it's inclusion under "In Use" is warranted. ProfGiles (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also make sublists:

• Countries where governments mess (e.g., "98" for 2009: Taiwan, N. Korea) with the year (on many official documents)
• Countries where governments mess with other parts too...

and impact many people. Jidanni (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When a new calendar comes into use, how does it become accepted and referenced in Wikipedia? One specific example that comes to mind is the Ehoah Kalendars: Australis, Borealis, and by combining the two the Globus Kalendar(http://ehoah.weebly.com/kalendars.html)? 65.92.205.173 (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It needs substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I want to bring to your attention that User:Dbachmann is changing the grouping an thus classification of the calendars listed. Previously they were grouped according In Use and Obselete. This has been changed to 'Ancient and Traditional and Historical. I think such a change needs to be discussed. Perhaps a better change addressing all concerns could be made. Karl (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not happy with the current grouping either. You will note the {{cleanup-rewrite}} tag is still in place. "All concerns" include that this list is worse than worthless still, as it doesn't even pretend to be based on any kind of reference. If the iterative approach to improvement is controversial, we should perhaps just axe it (always an improvement in pages that are worse than worthless), and see if we can rebuild it from scratch based on some kind of published source.

It goes without saying, I hope, that the "in use" vs. "obsolete" grouping was untenable, not only was it unreferenced, it is also intrinsically misguided -- calendars keep getting reformed and revived, so it is very far from clear which calendars are and are not "in use". It is also rather questionable to distinguish between merely "proposed" calendars and "used" ones. If this is going to be a referenced list, there can well be a column "official use" which can give referenced information on sovereign states recognizing the calendar, and perhaps another column citing usage in printed publications or similar. Even if this is done, an overall grouping by "usage" still strikes me as a bad idea, but it will not be a problem once we lose "grouping" in favour in a column-sortable table. --dab (𒁳) 13:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you dab for your comment. I appreciate your comments about usage. Usage would need to verified by a printed calendar or a document that uses a date from the calendar and a reliable source that states that the printed calendar or date is of the specified calendar. The Assyrian calendar is one that would need usage verification, but the Gregorian calendar, Islamic calendar or Chinese calendar are used so much that I don't think their usage needs verifying. Karl (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

great, sounds like a column "last recorded usage", if you feel like compiling it, but I still don't see how this is any kind of meaningful categorization. What qualifies as "current"? And why "print" specifically? Say there is a tradition of the Berber calendar being used in Timbuktu with several full-time scribes preparing handwritten copies every year (I just made that up). Would this make the calendar unfit for "currently used" because the printing press wasn't used? Also, you are aware, of course, that this puts the Shire calendar out of the "fictional" into the "currently used" category. In general, any pop culture item will receive orders of magnitude more printed references than ethnic or religious traditions alive somewhere in the third world. --dab (𒁳) 10:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps calendars can be categorized by whether they are lunisolar, solar, lunar or some other such kind including those that follow no astronomical cycle. I see a table has been started with this categorization in one column. This page needs to be more useful than the category of specific calendars and so does need some additional information. Karl (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is still starved for references, but at least we now have something that isn't entirely devoid of information beyond "these articles exist on Wikipedia". The main problem is the distinction between broad categories along cultural lines (like "Chinese calendar", "Hindu calendar" which discuss numerous regional or historical calendar variants) and specific reforms (such as Islamic calendar, Julian calendar, French Republican calendar). Also problematic are links that are really just calendar eras used with the Gregorian calendar (which are not, strictly speaking, separate calendars, just eras) and stuff like Lithuanian calendar, which is basically a "list of Lithuanian translations of the Gregorian month names and weekdays" (also not strictly speaking a separate calendar). A third class of problem arises from articles that are themselves too purely referenced to make head or tail of them, mostly "reconstructed" ethnic traditions mostly notable for their (not necessarily historical) use in ethnic nationalism, such as Bulgar calendar, Berber calendar, Yoruba calendar. I tagged these as "traditional/tribal" for now, but they should properly be dropped pending the addition of acceptable references. --dab (𒁳) 12:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some more time with this, the page is still littered with inline tags marking missing information or references, but at least I do think the information is now roughly "reality based". --dab (𒁳) 16:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The table identifies the Roman Republican Calendar as a solar calendar, which is wrong. It was a lunisolar calendar. The better-known Julian Calendar which replaced the Roman Republican Calendar was a solar calendar, but the Roman Republican Calendar was a lunisolar calendar. -- Bob99 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian, "Byzantin" calendar still in use in Serbia counts 7526 years (=2018)! No mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.139.87 (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to invite comment as to whether it is appropriate for this article to use the calendar of a particular religion as the reference scale for all the other calendars of many other religions and none. In my view, the (almost) religiously neutral Common Era is significantly more NPOV.

Per wp:ERA, I want to propose formally that the table entries that currently give a date using AD or BC notation (as a reference for its epoch or similar) be changed so as to use CE or BCE respectively.

Your comments please. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article does not focus on any one religion the AD/BC notation is fine, as it has been in English for centuries the predominant general-purpose notation. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note RfC not set up right, and AD/BC/CE/BCE are not calendars, they are notations for counting from a point in time about 2019 years ago. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the article is written by and for a world-wide, 21st century, audience, not a 17th C British one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge of course that "calendar" is not technically correct but it is a reasonable approximation in this context. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to test the water initially to see whether the work to set up a full RFC would be worthwhile.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"but the article is written by and for a world-wide, 21st century, audience" as a justification to exclude AD and use CE instead may convince other publications but is not in accord with WP:ERA. Also the reason applies to most WP articles so this discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem to have made clear my proposal. WP:ERA says that the era first used in an article should be retained unless there is a substantial justification to change it due to article content. I believe that this condition applies (but then I would, that's why I am proposing it). Even so, I recognise that it is a controversial change so a consensus for change is needed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)

Unless it would offend a rule that I don't know about, I propose next to leave an invitation to participate in this discussion, at the articles for the linked calendars. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There is nothing special about this article that justifies changing the established era style. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

కొప్పర్తి. సమూయేలు అనునేను 2007 సంవత్సరంలో క్రొత్త కాలెండర్ రూపొందించాను దాని ప్రకారం ఈ రోజు తేదీ 1-02-2021 / 24-04-2072 మెస్సీయ జననం తరువాత తేదీతో సమానంగా ఉంది ,మీ సహకారాన్ని మాకు అందిస్తే ఖచ్చితంగా మా కాలెండర్ ను ప్రవేశపెట్టడానికి సిద్ధంగా ఉన్నాము K.puliraju(samuel) (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@K.puliraju(samuel): This is the english language version of Wikipedia. Please go to https://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B0%AE%E0%B1%8A%E0%B0%A6%E0%B0%9F%E0%B0%BF_%E0%B0%AA%E0%B1%87%E0%B0%9C%E0%B1%80 for Wikipedia in the Telugu language. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there that Koreans have a five-day week? According to the Wikipedia article on the Korean calendar, the Koreans don't even have any concept of weekdays, so that the article discusses the Korean names for the days of the seven-day Western week. --Susurrus (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The respected calendar Vikram Sambat which is spelled ad Bikram sambat which according to wikipedia “This is one of the oldest system of chronological reckoning which is still used in India.” But this is wrong and a shame to wikipedia. It is the main calendar followed by Nepalese and still we Nepalese follow this calendar everyday but not Indians. It is only used in India for few reasons, but in Nepal this is our main calender. You have to correct it and have more learning about it. 120.17.136.100 (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia relies on published sources. WP: original research is not permitted. So if the article is to be improved, additional evidence needs to be brought forward so that it can be summarised. Wikipedia is also written by volunteers like you and me, so someone in Nepal (you?) needs to find the published explanation (and ideally, summarise it). The source doesn't have to be in English provided that you summarise it in English, honestly and to the best of your ability, giving page numbers. If you like, you can put the information here and someone will make it look pretty, because that's the easy part. Thank you if you can do it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

excerpt

Name	Type	Group	Introduction	Usage	Comments
Pyu calendar	lunisolar	Hindu/Buddhist-derived	640	mainland Southeast Asia	Traditional calendar of Southeast Asia, in use until the 19th century. (…)
Tamil calendar	solar	Hindu	Ancient	Tamil Nadu	The Hindu calendar used in Tamil Nadu
Kollam Era	sidereal solar	Hindu	825	Kerala	…
Nepali calendar	solar	Hindu/ Buddhist	Medieval	Nepal	One of the Hindu calendars
Nepal Sambat	lunisolar	Buddhist/ Hindu	9th century	Nepal	A lunisolar Buddhist calendar traditional to Nepal, recognition in Nepal in 2008.
Bengali calendar	lunisolar	Bengali	Medieval	Bengal	Revised in 1987.
Thai lunar calendar	lunisolar	Hindu/Buddhist	Medieval	Thailand	A Buddhist calendar
Pawukon calendar	fixed (210 days)	Hindu		Bali
Tibetan calendar	lunisolar	Buddhist/Chinese-derived	13th century	Tibet	The Kalacakra, a Buddhist calendar introduced in 13th-century Tibet
Javanese calendar	lunar	Islamic influenced	1633	Java	Based on the Hindu calendar … but changed … its method of counting of years from solar years to lunar years as per the Islamic calendar.
Vikram Samwat	Lunisolar	Hindu	Ancient India	India/Nepal	The Vira Nirvana Samvat (era) is a calendar era beginning on 7 October 527 BCE. It commemorates the Nirvana of Lord Mahaviraswami, the 24th Jain Tirthankara. This is one of the oldest system of chronological reckoning which is still used in India.

I’m not sure what exactly the problem is, besides many English speakers not being well-versed with traditional Asian calendars, their relationships, differences and actual usage.

Nepal Sambat

• ← Nepalese calendar
• ← Nepal Era
• ← Nepali New Year
• ← Nepalese New Year
• ← New Year (Nepal)
• ← New Year's Day (Nepal)
• ← Nepal Samvat
• ← Nepali Calendar

Vikram Samvat

• ← Bikram Sambat
• ← Vikram-Samvat calendar
• ← Vikrama Samvat
• ← Vikram era
• ← Bikram Sambhat
• ← Bikrami calendar
• ← Bikrami
• ← Vikrama era
• ← Nepali Date – should probably redirect to Nepal Sambat instead
• ← Vikram Samwat
• ← Vikram Samvant
• ← Bikram Samwat
• ← Bikram Samvat
• ← B.S. (Vikram Samvat)
• ← Vikrami calendar
• ← Malava era
• ← Bikram Era
• ← Bikram calendar
• but Vikram Sambat is currently not a redirect. — Christoph Päper 08:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok 2409:4063:4A0B:81F5:0:0:B048:4008 (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does List of adoption dates of the Gregorian calendar by country give you what you want? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]