This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reason: to reverse an unsupported renaming
Although I originally suggested the move and (incorrectly) tried to implement it, I am pursuaded by another that it would not be appropriate. The original article was replaced by a disambiguation page, which links to this article and another which does not exist, Julian year (calendar). The latter subject is covered an existing article, Julian calendar. Since this is already covered by a disambiguation link, a disambiguation page is unnecessary. See discussion on the original talk page. -- Nike 22:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC).
I see that now. I am thinking that probably it does not need an article separate from Julian calendar. However, the first sentence is, "A Julian year is of 365.25 days long." This is factually incorrect. A year of the Julian calendar is either 365 or 366 days long, never 365.25 days. A better one would be, "A Julian year is a period beginning on January 1 and ending on the following December 31 on the Julian calendar, which is either 365 or 366 days long, depending upon whether the given year is a leap year." -- Nike 03:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The year-number is also not an inherent part of the Julian calendar, unlike the Gregorian. It was first instituted in Roman times, when the years were named for consuls, and later the reigns of emperors, so it is not just "something which happens in later times". AUC dates were used mostly by historians. Various other methods have also been used. AD dates only came into general use much later, and are also used with the Gregorian calendar. So the Julian year is independent of any method of counting years. This already discussed in the Anno Domini article, so there is no point on duplicating the information, nor would it be the most appropriate place. What would there be in Julian year (calendar) article that is not already covered by other articles? -- Nike 20:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
This still appears on the request for comment list so I'll add my two cents. I doubt it's a significant inconvenience to astronomers to click on the disambiguation link. However, an amateur history buff with an interest in Napoleon's invasion of Russia would find it confusing to reach the astronomy page by accident. Encyclopedias are references for laypeople. Durova 18:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. (proposal was to move to to Julian year) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 13:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
The intro first explains the Julian astronomical year technically, then everything that a julian year isn't, up to including confusing a bit, but why such a rigid Julian year concept? What use? I believe the truth is that it was needed for the astronomical epochs: the tropical year varied somewhat by planetary perturbations and the varying ellipticity of Earth's orbit around the Sun, so an astronomical year couldn't be used. Later developments have also shown that a day isn't well enough defined, therefore JD and epochs based on JD are moving to rely on ephemeride time ET, so that we get JDE and epochs based on JDE, otherwise the physics involving celestial mechanics will contain systemic errors. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 11:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This sentence in the intro has several problems:
Astronomers follow the same calendar conventions that are accepted in the world community: They use the Gregorian calendar for events since its introduction on October 15, 1582 (or later, depending on country), and the Julian calendar for events before that date.
"Astronomers" can be taken to mean modern astronomers, or all astronomers who were active after 1582. I have no idea what calendar an English astronomer would have used to record an event in 1700. I think the truth is that astronomers use many different calendars from one minute to the next, depending on whether they are creating an ephemeris, writing the date of a contemporary observation, researching historical observations, or scheduling telescope time. Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Are the tropical and sidereal years reversed in the discussion of "angular measure"? If not, some clarification is in order. — Aldaron • T/ C 13:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Julian year (astronomy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reason: to reverse an unsupported renaming
Although I originally suggested the move and (incorrectly) tried to implement it, I am pursuaded by another that it would not be appropriate. The original article was replaced by a disambiguation page, which links to this article and another which does not exist, Julian year (calendar). The latter subject is covered an existing article, Julian calendar. Since this is already covered by a disambiguation link, a disambiguation page is unnecessary. See discussion on the original talk page. -- Nike 22:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC).
I see that now. I am thinking that probably it does not need an article separate from Julian calendar. However, the first sentence is, "A Julian year is of 365.25 days long." This is factually incorrect. A year of the Julian calendar is either 365 or 366 days long, never 365.25 days. A better one would be, "A Julian year is a period beginning on January 1 and ending on the following December 31 on the Julian calendar, which is either 365 or 366 days long, depending upon whether the given year is a leap year." -- Nike 03:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The year-number is also not an inherent part of the Julian calendar, unlike the Gregorian. It was first instituted in Roman times, when the years were named for consuls, and later the reigns of emperors, so it is not just "something which happens in later times". AUC dates were used mostly by historians. Various other methods have also been used. AD dates only came into general use much later, and are also used with the Gregorian calendar. So the Julian year is independent of any method of counting years. This already discussed in the Anno Domini article, so there is no point on duplicating the information, nor would it be the most appropriate place. What would there be in Julian year (calendar) article that is not already covered by other articles? -- Nike 20:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
This still appears on the request for comment list so I'll add my two cents. I doubt it's a significant inconvenience to astronomers to click on the disambiguation link. However, an amateur history buff with an interest in Napoleon's invasion of Russia would find it confusing to reach the astronomy page by accident. Encyclopedias are references for laypeople. Durova 18:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. (proposal was to move to to Julian year) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 13:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
The intro first explains the Julian astronomical year technically, then everything that a julian year isn't, up to including confusing a bit, but why such a rigid Julian year concept? What use? I believe the truth is that it was needed for the astronomical epochs: the tropical year varied somewhat by planetary perturbations and the varying ellipticity of Earth's orbit around the Sun, so an astronomical year couldn't be used. Later developments have also shown that a day isn't well enough defined, therefore JD and epochs based on JD are moving to rely on ephemeride time ET, so that we get JDE and epochs based on JDE, otherwise the physics involving celestial mechanics will contain systemic errors. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 11:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This sentence in the intro has several problems:
Astronomers follow the same calendar conventions that are accepted in the world community: They use the Gregorian calendar for events since its introduction on October 15, 1582 (or later, depending on country), and the Julian calendar for events before that date.
"Astronomers" can be taken to mean modern astronomers, or all astronomers who were active after 1582. I have no idea what calendar an English astronomer would have used to record an event in 1700. I think the truth is that astronomers use many different calendars from one minute to the next, depending on whether they are creating an ephemeris, writing the date of a contemporary observation, researching historical observations, or scheduling telescope time. Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Are the tropical and sidereal years reversed in the discussion of "angular measure"? If not, some clarification is in order. — Aldaron • T/ C 13:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Julian year (astronomy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)