This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Someone wrote a comment in the article asking why the US used it's particular 360 day calendar variant, and what the advantages of it were. I removed it because it was unencyclopedic, but the answer would be a good thing to put in the article, if anyone knows.-- 82.45.163.18 17:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
How is 29 February handled in each of the systems?
The formulae given are simply incorrect. The correct ones are as follows:
Out of courtesy to other posters, I will leave it for a few days to get any feedback before rewording the text.
I can also give a citation for the Excel bug. TerryE ( talk) 04:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
"To derive such a calendar from the standard Gregorian calendar, certain days are skipped." Aren't a couple of days added too (to February)? JIMp talk· cont 06:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Many years ago, I saw a printed calendar which showed a "bank day" number for each day of the year, als well as the number of bank days remaining till the end of the year (361-x). Out of curiosity, I checked how it differed from normal day numbering. After each streak of 60 days, there was one day where the number didn't advance. So, in a standard year, you would have (in total) five non-bank-days between days 60 and 61, 120 and 121, etc'. In a leap year, 31-Dec would be a non-bank-day as well. Using this system might or might not yield results identical to one of the methods listed in the article, but it's much easier to handle algorithmically.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Someone wrote a comment in the article asking why the US used it's particular 360 day calendar variant, and what the advantages of it were. I removed it because it was unencyclopedic, but the answer would be a good thing to put in the article, if anyone knows.-- 82.45.163.18 17:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
How is 29 February handled in each of the systems?
The formulae given are simply incorrect. The correct ones are as follows:
Out of courtesy to other posters, I will leave it for a few days to get any feedback before rewording the text.
I can also give a citation for the Excel bug. TerryE ( talk) 04:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
"To derive such a calendar from the standard Gregorian calendar, certain days are skipped." Aren't a couple of days added too (to February)? JIMp talk· cont 06:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Many years ago, I saw a printed calendar which showed a "bank day" number for each day of the year, als well as the number of bank days remaining till the end of the year (361-x). Out of curiosity, I checked how it differed from normal day numbering. After each streak of 60 days, there was one day where the number didn't advance. So, in a standard year, you would have (in total) five non-bank-days between days 60 and 61, 120 and 121, etc'. In a leap year, 31-Dec would be a non-bank-day as well. Using this system might or might not yield results identical to one of the methods listed in the article, but it's much easier to handle algorithmically.