To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, other Common/Leap year starting on day of the week talk pages redirect here. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Common/Leap year starting on day of the week article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Um, isn't highlighting Sunday like that cultural POV? 24.18.215.132 22:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Why don't the weeks start with Sunday, like every other calendar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.213.74 ( talk) 23:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Why do these begin on a Monday? Is this really the standard in English-speaking cultures? - Branddobbe 07:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know that as well. It's very confusing. It's like having a clock with 1 at the top. Donnie Love ( talk) 2007 12 14 07 34 (UTC)
Clarification: the above question means set up with Monday as the first day of the week. Georgia guy ( talk) 21:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm here looking for an answer to that myself. Someone should take the time to correct this. – Sarregouset (Talk) 12:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The relevant International Standard ISO 8601 states that weeks start on a Monday. It's a bit like driving on the right: either convention works but it helps if we all use the same one. Certes ( talk) 23:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, look: This is English Wikipedia. There is indeed an international standard that has changed it to Monday (and "changed" is correct; the Sabbath is traditionally Saturday and not until Protestantism was founded five centuries ago did people start calling the Christian day of public worship a "Sabbath"). But most English-speaking people have never even seen a calendar that begins the week on Monday. I never saw one until I saw one of these Wikipedia pages 20 minutes ago. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
So how widespread is actual use of the cited ISO standard? (I've never seen it except on these Wikipedia pages.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Sunday has been the first day of the week in the West for 2000 years at least. Every calendar I've ever seen at Borders or Barnes and Noble starts on Sunday. I'm using Wikipedia's calendar for 1849 to correlate some dates to what days of the week they fell on. Sunday was the first day of the week in English speaking countries in the 19th Century. It would be helpful if the calendars here relected that. This ISO standard is not common in the USA outside of some business applications. This calendar should either give the option for choosing a format or reflect the most common and historic usage, not some arcane and obscure descion by some international committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogden507 ( talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this whole discussion again shows the narrowmindedness of USA-citizens, and confirms the view Europeans have on them. My native language is not English, however it is the de facto language used on the Internet and the English version of Wikipedia contains much more information than any localized version. Therefore I will most often use the English version of Wikipedia for global lemmas. Calling ISO "some international committee" just to hide the fact you want your personal version of Wikipedia is pretty lame. If Monday is the ISO standard, then let's keep it at ISO standard. After all, USA is only one of the few countries using Sunday as the first day. There are also a few countries having Tuesday as the first day, would you agree to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.218.141 ( talk) 19:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Pardon my naivete if this has been discussed at length. Why are the weeks shown beginning on Monday rather than Sunday? Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus for this [2] change from the existing template to a new format and the similar changes to Common year starting on Tuesday etc.? I do not want to revert, because one effect of the change is to start weeks on Sundays which I opposed above, but I would welcome other comments. It is clear from the previous discussions that there is more than one good format for this information and it is not obvious which one is best. Is the right way forward to invite a Wikipedia:Third opinion? I do not mean to imply that we have any sort of "dispute", simply that we could use some help in finding the best content for the page, which may well be a blend of the old and new versions. Certes ( talk) 00:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Clearly we need a format where we can link to the dates.
This discussion doesn't seem to be attracting a broad range of commentators; I surmise that not many people pay attention to this page, and I'm not that surprised.
What would be the best way to get a large number of other informed people who may have views on this into this discussion, if that should prove to be the prudent thing to do? Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Many articles have links like 2007 to a page beginning "2007 (MMVII) was a common year starting on Monday..." or similar, so this page is two clicks away from much of the encyclopedia. {{ Calendar|year=2007}} (with a suitable year specified for Tue-Sun starts and leap years) is almost what we need, if we can remove the specific year from the heading. Certes ( talk) 20:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
This page is hopelessly neglected. It's been months since I raised the issue of the conspicuous error on this page—that it has weeks starting on Monday instead of Sunday. But all we see is an edit, just today, which I reverted, saying there's no accuracy dispute. (I'd quickly clean up the mess myself if it did not appear necessary to have extensive familiarity with certain kinds of software. I did clean it up once, but without links to each date, etc., and that got reverted.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 08:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I suppose there is a reason why this calendar ends with Sunday, although for two thousand years and more, Sunday has been the first day of the week. What is the reason? L.ThomasW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.12.27 ( talk) 20:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you please change the days of the week in this page and the other calendar pages to match up the correct SMTWTFS alignment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.69.175 ( talk) 00:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Reading through this pages it seems to me that the vast majority are in favour of using a Sunday-first calendar on these pages. I agree, it's the more common format used in English-speaking countries. There was a suggestion above though that we might like to make it optional. If that's what we want, then we could use {{ hidden}} i.e. something like this.
{{hidden|calendar|{{calendar|year=2018|hideyear=y}}|expanded=yes}} {{hidden|iso calendar|{{calendar|year=2018|hideyear=y|format=iso}}|expanded=yes}}
Jimp 09:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
001
as Monday-first, but most major English-speaking areas like AU, CA, IE, IN and US as Sunday-first (Ireland was changed in 2012). Also note the ISO way of week numbering <minDays count="4" …>
is still applied to Ireland, but not to the default code. —
Christoph
Päper 08:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)<weekData>
<minDays count="1" territories="001 GU UM US VI" />
<minDays count="4" territories="AD AN AT AX BE BG CH CZ DE DK EE ES FI FJ FO FR GB GF GG GI GP GR HU IE IM IS IT JE LI LT LU MC MQ NL NO PL PT RE SE SJ SK SM VA" />
<!-- Note, this firstDay is for the first day of the week in a calendar page view. -->
<!-- The first workday of the week (after the weekend) is distinct, and can be determined as the day after the weekendEnd day. -->
<firstDay day="mon" territories="001 AD AI AL AM AN AT AX AZ BA BE BG BM BN BY CH CL CM CR CY CZ DE DK EC EE ES FI FJ FO FR GB GE GF GP GR HR HU IS IT KG KZ LB LI LK LT LU LV MC MD ME MK MN MQ MY NL NO PL PT RE RO RS RU SE SI SK SM TJ TM TR UA UY UZ VA VN XK" />
<firstDay day="fri" territories="BD MV" />
<firstDay day="sat" territories="AE AF BH DJ DZ EG IQ IR JO KW LY MA OM QA SD SY" />
<firstDay day="sun" territories="AG AR AS AU BR BS BT BW BZ CA CN CO DM DO ET GT GU HK HN ID IE IL IN JM JP KE KH KR LA MH MM MO MT MX MZ NI NP NZ PA PE PH PK PR PY SA SG SV TH TN TT TW UM US VE VI WS YE ZA ZW" />
<firstDay day="sun" territories="GB" alt="variant" references="Shorter Oxford Dictionary (5th edition, 2002)"/>
<weekendStart day="thu" territories="AF"/>
<weekendStart day="fri" territories="AE BH DZ EG IL IQ IR JO KW LY MA OM QA SA SD SY TN YE"/>
<weekendStart day="sat" territories="001"/>
<weekendStart day="sun" territories="IN"/>
<weekendEnd day="fri" territories="AF IR"/>
<weekendEnd day="sat" territories="AE BH DZ EG IL IQ JO KW LY MA OM QA SA SD SY TN YE"/>
<weekendEnd day="sun" territories="001"/>
</weekData>
I ask you... why would anyone need to know information about a leap year starting on a Friday!?! Deskana 23:09, 5th July 2005 (GMT)
Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, should these articles really exist? I don't think it's encyclopaedic, and if people really did want to know about it would wikipedia really be the place they'd look? Perhaps there is scope to merge one of them into another article (perhaps Gregorian calendar?) as an example, but I'm not convinced that all fourteen of them are really necessary as seperate articles. Any thoughts? -- John24601 16:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
How is this page useful? -- Annonymus user ( talk) 06:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
…that apart from further explanation makes no sense at all (as to why it is here, or if it should remain):
"With week numbers, produced by m:Template:year calendar ( backlinks ):
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2006
|
…until its location within the article can be considered, and until it can be accompanied by brief, sufficient text to explain its meaning/intent:
I am a learned individual, and a longtime editor, and prima facie, this means nothing to a lay reader, and so requires explanation. Where do these links purport to take the reader? 71.239.87.100 ( talk) 05:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Common year starting on Sunday. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Common year starting on Sunday. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Concerning the table of example years.
I consider it too big for the information it contains, not worth the scrolling and waiting.
I prefer the previous century per row table.
I see no need for links to millennia in the table and I do not think links to decades are important enough here to justify making the table 10 times longer.
Or why not just list the example years (e.g.)
1803 1814 1825 1831 1842 1853 1859 etc.
Also not being in a HTML tabler form backs it easier for users to correct or extend (e.g. to full 400 years).
User:Karl Palmen - 23 March 2004
I am on a Mac and the numbers don't properly align.
The format that I talked about above, has been replaced by an alternative different from the one I suggested. I am happy with it. User:Karl Palmen - 19 September 2005
07-Jan-2008: I had thought the various year-starting calendars were stable, since the concept has been around hundreds of years. Of course, I forgot "form over substance" would likely re-write the calendars into another format. Now, I notice that the new format is totally incompatible with 800x600 resolution screens, scrolling beyond the right margin for the display of something as trivial as a full-year calendar. Wikipedia continues to be plagued with garbled, weird display pages: as soon as an article gets carefully typeset for a wide range of user screens (and various browsers), the page is replaced. Now these overwide full-calendar pages have highly spastic "week numbers" appended to each week in a very queer and wiki-peculiar innovation. No original research: do not display a calendar in bizarre "new research" format. Stick to calendars that look normal, as I think they did last year. The concept "NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH" means no displaying of "standard" Gregorian Calendars with queerly spastic, peculiar week-number displays. I think these calendars need to be reverted, per WP:NOR. - Wikid77 ( talk) 00:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've commented out the calendar because it is greatly in error, i.e. missing several days which in turn makes the rest of it inaccurate. I figured it was better to have no calendar than one that is wrong, especially considering that the average user would not have noticed the error. I'd fix the mistake myself but that HTML looks daunting. -- Polynova 07:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Leap year starting on Friday (Jan-Feb) with the calendar from Leap year starting on Thursday (Mar-Dec). -- Karl Palmen 29 Nov 2004
I'm totally confused. Rfc1394 in his edit notes states that "some asshole fucked the whole thing up". The last version before he touched it looked fine to me. -- Chuq 09:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Someone or some people from various IP addresses beginning with 39.50 has been repeated adding leap years to a list of example years early in the article. Karl ( talk) 11:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
nth decade of mth century starts with ***0 and ends with ***9. So, 2010 is part of 2nd decade, not 1st, 2190 is part of 10th decade, not 9th. -- 40bus ( talk) 07:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
07-Jan-2008: I had thought the various year-starting calendars were stable, since the concept has been around hundreds of years. Of course, I forgot "form over substance" would likely re-write the calendars into another format. Now, I notice that the new format is totally incompatible with 800x600 resolution screens, scrolling beyond the right margin for the display of something as trivial as a full-year calendar. Wikipedia continues to be plagued with garbled, weird display pages: as soon as an article gets carefully typeset for a wide range of user screens (and various browsers), the page is replaced. Now these overwide full-calendar pages have highly spastic "week numbers" appended to each week in a very queer and wiki-peculiar innovation. No original research: do not display a calendar in bizarre "new research" format. Stick to calendars that look normal, as I think they did last year. The concept "NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH" means no displaying of "standard" Gregorian Calendars with queerly spastic, peculiar week-number displays. I think these calendars need to be reverted, per WP:NOR. - Wikid77 ( talk) 00:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
We're discussing the accessibility of calendar pages. Please join us! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Can I together of course with others do otherwise than clearly admire the works of those who have taken such trouble on this matter?
Ladies and gentlemen, unfotunately it seems you do not take into account the fact that as I have stated at the headline of this my own contribution on this Talk Page all four hundred years are exactly identical in this form of what is now to some extent international calendars.
What is possibly related is the fact that unfortunately I have not seen this clearly confirmable fact made identified on Wikipedia or indeed perhaps anywhere else but personally I think it must have been clear at the time that this form of calendars was first created in Europe in the 16th century.
The immediate issue is the period of six days in addition of weeks in the century in the last year of 99 before the century in the years divisible by four hundred and of five days in the same issue in the following three centuries this being of course a total of twenty-one days that which is divisible by seven (or weeks) and with the final century in the four hundred year section carried one day ahead from the centuries divisible by four hundred (such as 17th or the present 21st centuries) this being with any similar form at the commencement of what is any such four centuries.
This is I suggest (even if not perhaps particularly well explained by myself here and not directly explained so far as I am aware anywhere else) a fact which cannot I believe be denied and I very much hope that eventually it is something that will become better known generally.
Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.79.31 ( talk) 15:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
2000 is part of 21st century. -- 40bus ( talk) 07:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I like how this leap year calendar is supposed to start on a friday, but lists january 1 as thursday... what gives? 218.215.5.61 ( talk) 10:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
move to Leap years starting on friday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingidiot ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency in the week numbering. The last week of this year (Dec 28-31) should be week 53. It is correct on the year that follows this one ( Common year starting on Friday). The fix will need to be done on Template:Year3. NoSeptember 17:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Whats a Leap_year_starting_on_Monday in german? Please interwiki it. thnx. :-) [3] (nicht signierter Beitrag von 46.115.39.198 ( Diskussion) 20:52, 13. Mai 2012 (CEST))
-- The answers can be sumed up as: roflmao. -- 92.202.58.79 ( talk) 12:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
On
Leap year starting on Wednesday, the calendar is currently created with {{
calendar|year=2020|show_year=off|title=Calendar for any
leap year starting on Wednesday,
. In early January of this year, there was a slow motion edit war over the show_year parameter (and, less controversially, year was changed from 1964 to 2020). As far as I can tell, neither side used edit summaries or otherwise discussed this change, and it's currently still set to off. Do we have a guideline or precedent for this, or should we come up with one now? I'd rather not have this fight again every January 1. The basic problem, of course, is that the template merely appends "2020" to the prose title, which looks nonsensical. But that could be overcome with a simple copyedit. And of course, if we're going with "leave it the way it is," we might want to throw in an HTML comment telling people not to change it. --
N
Y
Kevin 03:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
presented as common in many English-speaking areas}}
|year=
, and it is not clear that they are all constructive.
Certes (
talk) 22:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)The table in this article says 1810 is in the second decade of a century but 1900 is in the tenth decade of a century. This means they're 8 decades apart; they have to be 9 decades apart because they have the same final digit and are exactly 90 years apart. Georgia guy ( talk) 13:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed a typo in “Daylight Savings Time.” It is “Daylight Saving Time” — no “s.” 71.212.203.193 ( talk) 18:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The statements "The most recent year of such kind" and "The next one will be" only require one year, not two, to be listed for each. Meters ( talk) 08:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
In the table near the bottom of the article dealing with the Gregorian Calendar, it says that 1990 and 1900 are both in the tenth decade of their respective centuries. This makes no sense unless you're saying a decade can have 11 years. Georgia guy ( talk) 15:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
This article appears to be excessively orientated towards the US. Few people outside of the US have any regard for what "presidents day" is, let alone how this relates to the Gregorian calendar. Albie Smith ( talk) 23:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The "Leap year starting on a ..." and "Common year starting on a ..." articles all contain an editing note starting with "To avoid arbitrary years, use the most recent or upcoming year of this type." Since there is still too much edit churning between the most recent and the upcoming years (for example, see [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] by an IP today), I suggest that we eliminate the option of choosing which to use. We should either use "most recent", or we should use "upcoming". No choice.
I think the most recent such year is the best choice since some of the upcoming years are far enough in the future that we don't have year articles for them. Meters ( talk) 22:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
On 2024 it started on a monday so it should be changed 2A02:C7C:2C1A:AB00:40E5:6E12:EC20:CCC9 ( talk) 20:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, other Common/Leap year starting on day of the week talk pages redirect here. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Common/Leap year starting on day of the week article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Um, isn't highlighting Sunday like that cultural POV? 24.18.215.132 22:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Why don't the weeks start with Sunday, like every other calendar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.213.74 ( talk) 23:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Why do these begin on a Monday? Is this really the standard in English-speaking cultures? - Branddobbe 07:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know that as well. It's very confusing. It's like having a clock with 1 at the top. Donnie Love ( talk) 2007 12 14 07 34 (UTC)
Clarification: the above question means set up with Monday as the first day of the week. Georgia guy ( talk) 21:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm here looking for an answer to that myself. Someone should take the time to correct this. – Sarregouset (Talk) 12:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The relevant International Standard ISO 8601 states that weeks start on a Monday. It's a bit like driving on the right: either convention works but it helps if we all use the same one. Certes ( talk) 23:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, look: This is English Wikipedia. There is indeed an international standard that has changed it to Monday (and "changed" is correct; the Sabbath is traditionally Saturday and not until Protestantism was founded five centuries ago did people start calling the Christian day of public worship a "Sabbath"). But most English-speaking people have never even seen a calendar that begins the week on Monday. I never saw one until I saw one of these Wikipedia pages 20 minutes ago. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
So how widespread is actual use of the cited ISO standard? (I've never seen it except on these Wikipedia pages.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Sunday has been the first day of the week in the West for 2000 years at least. Every calendar I've ever seen at Borders or Barnes and Noble starts on Sunday. I'm using Wikipedia's calendar for 1849 to correlate some dates to what days of the week they fell on. Sunday was the first day of the week in English speaking countries in the 19th Century. It would be helpful if the calendars here relected that. This ISO standard is not common in the USA outside of some business applications. This calendar should either give the option for choosing a format or reflect the most common and historic usage, not some arcane and obscure descion by some international committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogden507 ( talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this whole discussion again shows the narrowmindedness of USA-citizens, and confirms the view Europeans have on them. My native language is not English, however it is the de facto language used on the Internet and the English version of Wikipedia contains much more information than any localized version. Therefore I will most often use the English version of Wikipedia for global lemmas. Calling ISO "some international committee" just to hide the fact you want your personal version of Wikipedia is pretty lame. If Monday is the ISO standard, then let's keep it at ISO standard. After all, USA is only one of the few countries using Sunday as the first day. There are also a few countries having Tuesday as the first day, would you agree to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.218.141 ( talk) 19:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Pardon my naivete if this has been discussed at length. Why are the weeks shown beginning on Monday rather than Sunday? Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus for this [2] change from the existing template to a new format and the similar changes to Common year starting on Tuesday etc.? I do not want to revert, because one effect of the change is to start weeks on Sundays which I opposed above, but I would welcome other comments. It is clear from the previous discussions that there is more than one good format for this information and it is not obvious which one is best. Is the right way forward to invite a Wikipedia:Third opinion? I do not mean to imply that we have any sort of "dispute", simply that we could use some help in finding the best content for the page, which may well be a blend of the old and new versions. Certes ( talk) 00:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Clearly we need a format where we can link to the dates.
This discussion doesn't seem to be attracting a broad range of commentators; I surmise that not many people pay attention to this page, and I'm not that surprised.
What would be the best way to get a large number of other informed people who may have views on this into this discussion, if that should prove to be the prudent thing to do? Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Many articles have links like 2007 to a page beginning "2007 (MMVII) was a common year starting on Monday..." or similar, so this page is two clicks away from much of the encyclopedia. {{ Calendar|year=2007}} (with a suitable year specified for Tue-Sun starts and leap years) is almost what we need, if we can remove the specific year from the heading. Certes ( talk) 20:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
This page is hopelessly neglected. It's been months since I raised the issue of the conspicuous error on this page—that it has weeks starting on Monday instead of Sunday. But all we see is an edit, just today, which I reverted, saying there's no accuracy dispute. (I'd quickly clean up the mess myself if it did not appear necessary to have extensive familiarity with certain kinds of software. I did clean it up once, but without links to each date, etc., and that got reverted.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 08:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I suppose there is a reason why this calendar ends with Sunday, although for two thousand years and more, Sunday has been the first day of the week. What is the reason? L.ThomasW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.12.27 ( talk) 20:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you please change the days of the week in this page and the other calendar pages to match up the correct SMTWTFS alignment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.69.175 ( talk) 00:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Reading through this pages it seems to me that the vast majority are in favour of using a Sunday-first calendar on these pages. I agree, it's the more common format used in English-speaking countries. There was a suggestion above though that we might like to make it optional. If that's what we want, then we could use {{ hidden}} i.e. something like this.
{{hidden|calendar|{{calendar|year=2018|hideyear=y}}|expanded=yes}} {{hidden|iso calendar|{{calendar|year=2018|hideyear=y|format=iso}}|expanded=yes}}
Jimp 09:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
001
as Monday-first, but most major English-speaking areas like AU, CA, IE, IN and US as Sunday-first (Ireland was changed in 2012). Also note the ISO way of week numbering <minDays count="4" …>
is still applied to Ireland, but not to the default code. —
Christoph
Päper 08:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)<weekData>
<minDays count="1" territories="001 GU UM US VI" />
<minDays count="4" territories="AD AN AT AX BE BG CH CZ DE DK EE ES FI FJ FO FR GB GF GG GI GP GR HU IE IM IS IT JE LI LT LU MC MQ NL NO PL PT RE SE SJ SK SM VA" />
<!-- Note, this firstDay is for the first day of the week in a calendar page view. -->
<!-- The first workday of the week (after the weekend) is distinct, and can be determined as the day after the weekendEnd day. -->
<firstDay day="mon" territories="001 AD AI AL AM AN AT AX AZ BA BE BG BM BN BY CH CL CM CR CY CZ DE DK EC EE ES FI FJ FO FR GB GE GF GP GR HR HU IS IT KG KZ LB LI LK LT LU LV MC MD ME MK MN MQ MY NL NO PL PT RE RO RS RU SE SI SK SM TJ TM TR UA UY UZ VA VN XK" />
<firstDay day="fri" territories="BD MV" />
<firstDay day="sat" territories="AE AF BH DJ DZ EG IQ IR JO KW LY MA OM QA SD SY" />
<firstDay day="sun" territories="AG AR AS AU BR BS BT BW BZ CA CN CO DM DO ET GT GU HK HN ID IE IL IN JM JP KE KH KR LA MH MM MO MT MX MZ NI NP NZ PA PE PH PK PR PY SA SG SV TH TN TT TW UM US VE VI WS YE ZA ZW" />
<firstDay day="sun" territories="GB" alt="variant" references="Shorter Oxford Dictionary (5th edition, 2002)"/>
<weekendStart day="thu" territories="AF"/>
<weekendStart day="fri" territories="AE BH DZ EG IL IQ IR JO KW LY MA OM QA SA SD SY TN YE"/>
<weekendStart day="sat" territories="001"/>
<weekendStart day="sun" territories="IN"/>
<weekendEnd day="fri" territories="AF IR"/>
<weekendEnd day="sat" territories="AE BH DZ EG IL IQ JO KW LY MA OM QA SA SD SY TN YE"/>
<weekendEnd day="sun" territories="001"/>
</weekData>
I ask you... why would anyone need to know information about a leap year starting on a Friday!?! Deskana 23:09, 5th July 2005 (GMT)
Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, should these articles really exist? I don't think it's encyclopaedic, and if people really did want to know about it would wikipedia really be the place they'd look? Perhaps there is scope to merge one of them into another article (perhaps Gregorian calendar?) as an example, but I'm not convinced that all fourteen of them are really necessary as seperate articles. Any thoughts? -- John24601 16:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
How is this page useful? -- Annonymus user ( talk) 06:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
…that apart from further explanation makes no sense at all (as to why it is here, or if it should remain):
"With week numbers, produced by m:Template:year calendar ( backlinks ):
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2006
|
…until its location within the article can be considered, and until it can be accompanied by brief, sufficient text to explain its meaning/intent:
I am a learned individual, and a longtime editor, and prima facie, this means nothing to a lay reader, and so requires explanation. Where do these links purport to take the reader? 71.239.87.100 ( talk) 05:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Common year starting on Sunday. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Common year starting on Sunday. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Concerning the table of example years.
I consider it too big for the information it contains, not worth the scrolling and waiting.
I prefer the previous century per row table.
I see no need for links to millennia in the table and I do not think links to decades are important enough here to justify making the table 10 times longer.
Or why not just list the example years (e.g.)
1803 1814 1825 1831 1842 1853 1859 etc.
Also not being in a HTML tabler form backs it easier for users to correct or extend (e.g. to full 400 years).
User:Karl Palmen - 23 March 2004
I am on a Mac and the numbers don't properly align.
The format that I talked about above, has been replaced by an alternative different from the one I suggested. I am happy with it. User:Karl Palmen - 19 September 2005
07-Jan-2008: I had thought the various year-starting calendars were stable, since the concept has been around hundreds of years. Of course, I forgot "form over substance" would likely re-write the calendars into another format. Now, I notice that the new format is totally incompatible with 800x600 resolution screens, scrolling beyond the right margin for the display of something as trivial as a full-year calendar. Wikipedia continues to be plagued with garbled, weird display pages: as soon as an article gets carefully typeset for a wide range of user screens (and various browsers), the page is replaced. Now these overwide full-calendar pages have highly spastic "week numbers" appended to each week in a very queer and wiki-peculiar innovation. No original research: do not display a calendar in bizarre "new research" format. Stick to calendars that look normal, as I think they did last year. The concept "NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH" means no displaying of "standard" Gregorian Calendars with queerly spastic, peculiar week-number displays. I think these calendars need to be reverted, per WP:NOR. - Wikid77 ( talk) 00:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've commented out the calendar because it is greatly in error, i.e. missing several days which in turn makes the rest of it inaccurate. I figured it was better to have no calendar than one that is wrong, especially considering that the average user would not have noticed the error. I'd fix the mistake myself but that HTML looks daunting. -- Polynova 07:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Leap year starting on Friday (Jan-Feb) with the calendar from Leap year starting on Thursday (Mar-Dec). -- Karl Palmen 29 Nov 2004
I'm totally confused. Rfc1394 in his edit notes states that "some asshole fucked the whole thing up". The last version before he touched it looked fine to me. -- Chuq 09:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Someone or some people from various IP addresses beginning with 39.50 has been repeated adding leap years to a list of example years early in the article. Karl ( talk) 11:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
nth decade of mth century starts with ***0 and ends with ***9. So, 2010 is part of 2nd decade, not 1st, 2190 is part of 10th decade, not 9th. -- 40bus ( talk) 07:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
07-Jan-2008: I had thought the various year-starting calendars were stable, since the concept has been around hundreds of years. Of course, I forgot "form over substance" would likely re-write the calendars into another format. Now, I notice that the new format is totally incompatible with 800x600 resolution screens, scrolling beyond the right margin for the display of something as trivial as a full-year calendar. Wikipedia continues to be plagued with garbled, weird display pages: as soon as an article gets carefully typeset for a wide range of user screens (and various browsers), the page is replaced. Now these overwide full-calendar pages have highly spastic "week numbers" appended to each week in a very queer and wiki-peculiar innovation. No original research: do not display a calendar in bizarre "new research" format. Stick to calendars that look normal, as I think they did last year. The concept "NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH" means no displaying of "standard" Gregorian Calendars with queerly spastic, peculiar week-number displays. I think these calendars need to be reverted, per WP:NOR. - Wikid77 ( talk) 00:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
We're discussing the accessibility of calendar pages. Please join us! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Can I together of course with others do otherwise than clearly admire the works of those who have taken such trouble on this matter?
Ladies and gentlemen, unfotunately it seems you do not take into account the fact that as I have stated at the headline of this my own contribution on this Talk Page all four hundred years are exactly identical in this form of what is now to some extent international calendars.
What is possibly related is the fact that unfortunately I have not seen this clearly confirmable fact made identified on Wikipedia or indeed perhaps anywhere else but personally I think it must have been clear at the time that this form of calendars was first created in Europe in the 16th century.
The immediate issue is the period of six days in addition of weeks in the century in the last year of 99 before the century in the years divisible by four hundred and of five days in the same issue in the following three centuries this being of course a total of twenty-one days that which is divisible by seven (or weeks) and with the final century in the four hundred year section carried one day ahead from the centuries divisible by four hundred (such as 17th or the present 21st centuries) this being with any similar form at the commencement of what is any such four centuries.
This is I suggest (even if not perhaps particularly well explained by myself here and not directly explained so far as I am aware anywhere else) a fact which cannot I believe be denied and I very much hope that eventually it is something that will become better known generally.
Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.79.31 ( talk) 15:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
2000 is part of 21st century. -- 40bus ( talk) 07:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I like how this leap year calendar is supposed to start on a friday, but lists january 1 as thursday... what gives? 218.215.5.61 ( talk) 10:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
move to Leap years starting on friday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingidiot ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency in the week numbering. The last week of this year (Dec 28-31) should be week 53. It is correct on the year that follows this one ( Common year starting on Friday). The fix will need to be done on Template:Year3. NoSeptember 17:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Whats a Leap_year_starting_on_Monday in german? Please interwiki it. thnx. :-) [3] (nicht signierter Beitrag von 46.115.39.198 ( Diskussion) 20:52, 13. Mai 2012 (CEST))
-- The answers can be sumed up as: roflmao. -- 92.202.58.79 ( talk) 12:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
On
Leap year starting on Wednesday, the calendar is currently created with {{
calendar|year=2020|show_year=off|title=Calendar for any
leap year starting on Wednesday,
. In early January of this year, there was a slow motion edit war over the show_year parameter (and, less controversially, year was changed from 1964 to 2020). As far as I can tell, neither side used edit summaries or otherwise discussed this change, and it's currently still set to off. Do we have a guideline or precedent for this, or should we come up with one now? I'd rather not have this fight again every January 1. The basic problem, of course, is that the template merely appends "2020" to the prose title, which looks nonsensical. But that could be overcome with a simple copyedit. And of course, if we're going with "leave it the way it is," we might want to throw in an HTML comment telling people not to change it. --
N
Y
Kevin 03:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
presented as common in many English-speaking areas}}
|year=
, and it is not clear that they are all constructive.
Certes (
talk) 22:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)The table in this article says 1810 is in the second decade of a century but 1900 is in the tenth decade of a century. This means they're 8 decades apart; they have to be 9 decades apart because they have the same final digit and are exactly 90 years apart. Georgia guy ( talk) 13:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed a typo in “Daylight Savings Time.” It is “Daylight Saving Time” — no “s.” 71.212.203.193 ( talk) 18:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The statements "The most recent year of such kind" and "The next one will be" only require one year, not two, to be listed for each. Meters ( talk) 08:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
In the table near the bottom of the article dealing with the Gregorian Calendar, it says that 1990 and 1900 are both in the tenth decade of their respective centuries. This makes no sense unless you're saying a decade can have 11 years. Georgia guy ( talk) 15:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
This article appears to be excessively orientated towards the US. Few people outside of the US have any regard for what "presidents day" is, let alone how this relates to the Gregorian calendar. Albie Smith ( talk) 23:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The "Leap year starting on a ..." and "Common year starting on a ..." articles all contain an editing note starting with "To avoid arbitrary years, use the most recent or upcoming year of this type." Since there is still too much edit churning between the most recent and the upcoming years (for example, see [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] by an IP today), I suggest that we eliminate the option of choosing which to use. We should either use "most recent", or we should use "upcoming". No choice.
I think the most recent such year is the best choice since some of the upcoming years are far enough in the future that we don't have year articles for them. Meters ( talk) 22:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
On 2024 it started on a monday so it should be changed 2A02:C7C:2C1A:AB00:40E5:6E12:EC20:CCC9 ( talk) 20:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)