Template talk:Year in various calendars/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Missing space

There is a space missing between the year and the word "in" in the box title. How can I fix this?--BozMo talk 07:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is still a problem. Since the template is locked I can't fix it. Two non-breaking space tags added this line

'''<span class="summary dtstart">{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|BC|{{PAGENAME}}|{{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}}}</span> in other calendars'''

before "in other calendars" works in my browser. How does it look to other users?—DocWatson42 (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

ISO8601

Because there was no year "0", ISO8601 renders, say, 3 BC as "-0002". Could instances of this template for BC-era years therefore have a row for such conversions? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Holocene calendar

this isn't a real calendar, please remove

A mistake in the Islamic calendar?

I feel that a "conceptual" mistake concerns the Islamic years: before 622 they are written with digits + BH (I suppose "Before Hijra"). But as far as I know, in the Islamic world there does not exist anything like the Christian "BC". Even in historical texts written by muslims I only find dates according to the Common Era, but never "Before Hijra". For Muslims, the time before Hijra is jahiliyyah ("ignorance [of the revelation]"), and it has no sense to speak of such times in a historical way. So, I feel that for every year preceding 622 this template should not calculate negative dates, but simply show one and the same word jahiliyyah. --Vermondo (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, I see that this template calculates years in the "Islamic" way (i.e. shorter than solar years) even before Hijra, while, before the revelation, the years were (probably) regulated on the sun and not on the moon (in the same way of the Jewish calendar). I feel that even Muslim scholars would be puzzled about the "right" way to calculate such dates. This pitfall shows how improper is trying to extend the Islamic calendar back before its creation. The only solution is writing "jahiliyya" and that's all ;-) --Vermondo (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Similar problem with the Iranian calendar. What should we do with such calendars, which have a sense "after" their beginning but none "before"? I think that forcing them to express "negative" years is inappropriate and probabily mistaken --Vermondo (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Julian Calendar

The Julian calendar is very important for anything relating to Western history prior to the 16th century. I am quite surprised it is not in this template. IBstupid (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Chinese calendar

The conversion in the template is complicated enough, but it is supported by over 4000 templates (over 2% of all Wikipedia's templates). Can someone point me to an explanation or table of the conversion/intercaluary months etc.? Rich Farmbrough, 13:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC).

Thai solar calendar

Thai solar calendar year for AD 1782 given as 2325, but this is an anachronism. The Siamese solar calendar was first adopted in AD 1888 with 6 April as its New Year's Day and 6 April 1782 as its epoch (reference date), retroactively making 6 April 1782 6 April Year 1 of the Bangkok Era. In AD 1912, New Year's Day was moved back to 1 April and year counting changed to a Buddhist Era (BE) reckoned as having had an epochal year 0 from 11 March 545 BC, believed to be the date of the death of Gautama Buddha. In AD 1941, New Year's Day moved back to 1 January, making conversion from AD to BE a simple matter of adding 543. The country's name also changed from Siam to Thailand, marking the advent of the Thai solar calendar.Pawyilee (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Long Count?

Room could be made for the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar, e.g. 2009 would be 12.19.15.x.x -- 12.19.16.x.x baed on [1] EamonnPKeane (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

Just wondering if tnavbar could be changed to navbar to avoid an extra redirect? Similar to what was done with Navbox -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

En dash spaces

WP:ENDASH says "Spacing: All disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but June–August 1940)." In this template, for instance, Islamic calendar 847 – 848 should be Islamic calendar 847–848
Unfortunately, that only works for positive numbers. WP:ENDASH also says "The word to, rather than an en dash, is used when a number range involves a negative value or might be misconstrued as a subtraction (−3 to 1, not −3–1)." Simply removing the spaces from Bahá'í calendar -400 – -399 makes it the unreadable Bahá'í calendar -400–-399
The minus signs shouldn't be hyphens (MOS:NUM#Common mathematical symbols) but fixing that doesn't create a readable result either: Bahá'í calendar −400–−399
So the ideal solution would be to remove the en dash spaces only for positive numbers, and perhaps to do something else for negative numbers. I've changed some of the printable characters in other templates, but changing your "if" statements is beyond my WP:BOLDness level at this point. So I'm leaving it as is for now. Art LaPella (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Bengali Calendar

{{editprotected}} I am trying to add the Bengali/Bangla calendar but unfortunately I am not sure how to write the code for it. Its actually very simple, Gregorian year -593 years (so it is currently 1416). I think the code is something like:

|- | [[Bengali calendar]] | {{ #expr: {{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}-593 }} |-

(I copied it from one of the other entries and changed the number, so its probably not completely correct) --Reahad (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 Added. The code looks good to me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Heisei 22

(copied from Talk:2010#Heisei 22)

It is not sure that 2010 will be part of the Heisei Period --82.134.154.25 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is in the template. Please discuss at Template talk:Year in other calendars. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that this template should be adjusted so as not to display the Japanese calendar for future years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this really a problem? For example, the article for 2010 Winter Olympics says that the 2010 Olympics will be held Feb 2010, but we don't know absolutely for certain that some horrible terrorist attack or something will cause the Olympics to be canceled. I think assuming the next year (2011 since I'm typing this in 2010) will be part of the Heisei period is as reasonable as assuming the next Olympics will take place. It's not like we can't change it if it isn't. Madlobster (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems a bit WP:CRYSTAL; we can be sure that 2100 will not be part of the Heisei Period, so deciding exactly where to draw the line is more arbitrary than most of our decisions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As indicated on Japanese era name#Nengō in modern Japan,

"one reign, one era name" (一世一元, issei-ichigen) system was adopted, wherein era names would change only upon imperial succession.

and in the article of the reigning Emperor Akihito also indicates

The Era of Akihito's reign bears the name "Heisei" (平成), and according to custom he will be renamed "Emperor Heisei" (平成天皇, ; see "posthumous name") after his death by order of the cabinet, in which the name of the next era under his successor will also be established.

Therefore, the era name "Heisei" could not be changed unless Akihito would pass away.--Belle Equipe (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I said 2100, as his age would be 112. Perhaps I should have said 2150, but still.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Era names, particularly "Heisei" (平成) and "Showa" (昭和), are still widely used in Japan, for example

• The year of casting for each Japanese coin only described by either Shōwa or Heisei (coins issued in early 1950's or earlier are not circulated any longer but only among collectors).
• All the documents issued by governments for domestic purposes have dates with the year written in the Japanese Era only, including Japanese driver's licenses. There is no description of the dominical year included.
• All train tickets have date of issue, and date of reservation for tickets for seat reservation written with the Japanese era (e.g. if you purchase a ticket at a train station now, the date of issue is written as "22-01-02", which means "(Heisei)22-01(=January)-02", since Japanese way to describe dates is YY-MM-DD).
• Most of schools issue certificates with the date by the Japanese era.

etc.

--Belle Equipe (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Bikram Samwat

This code is correct for Bikram Samwat in Template:Year in other calendars:

{{#expr: {{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+56}} – {{#expr: {{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+57}}

James Michael 1 (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Error in Ab Urbe Condita

{{editprotected}} The current year Ab Urbe Condita is 2762, not 2763. The mathematical formula is AUC=AD+753-1 due to the lack of a 0 in formal use of either Anno Domini or Ab Urbe Condita. (I say formal use because astronomical dating does use the Year 0.) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Incoherence with Ab urbe condita article

The previous formula to calculate the Ab urbe condita year was the correct one in my opinion, and it matches the content in the Ab urbe condita article. Right now there is an incoherence between the template and the article. On the talk page there is also the reasoning behind the formula. I suggest that it be changed again to the correct one. Loqu (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay I have reverted this change. Please can you discuss which is the correct formula between yourselves? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Unlink year in Hebrew calendar

{{editprotected}} Please do not link the year in Hebrew calendar. The year in other calendar are not linked, so why the Hebrew calendar is different from other? Also this lead to red links because the numbers are 5000+ which do not have article. --Quest for Truth (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 unlinked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian calendar

I think the Ancient Egyptian calendar date should be included, and also the animal name for the Chinese year should be included. Serendi^podous 01:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Including animal name for the Chinese year looks like a good idea, but will it make the part of Chinese calendar too long?--Quest for Truth (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's already pretty long, so I don't think it would make much difference if it were added. Do you not think the ancient Egyptian calendar date should be added? Serendi^podous 16:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I also like the idea of adding ancient Egyptian calendar. I think you can make one in a sandbox to let others see the effect.--Quest for Truth (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew calendar in Hebrew numerals

I think Hebrew calendar should be in Hebrew numerals. I have never seen Hebrew dates in Roman numerals. --Jonah.ru (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of Roman numerals, I guess what you actually mean is Arabic numerals. If the system is able to convert numbers into Hebrew numerals or a template is capable to do so, then I support displaying Hebrew numerals alongside Arabic numerals.--Quest for Truth (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Arabic, certainly. --Jonah.ru (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Broken for BC years

The Chinese Calendar section is broken for BC years. Kaldari (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the problem is that {{Chinese calendar/year name}} doesn't handle negative numbers. Kaldari (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The usage instructions on the {{Chinese calendar/year name}} template say that the allowed input date range is from the year 4 to the year 2044, so perhaps this template should check for that before trying to construct the link. Kaldari (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have found out the solution and made a request in Template talk:Chinese calendar/year name.--Quest for Truth (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Collapse template?

Can this template be made collapsible? It is taking up too much space in e.g. 2011. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone able to deal with this? Surely it's pretty straightforward. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes aren't collapsible. It is very annoying at times. --Philip Stevens (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

They're not??? That's certainly most inconvenient!!! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no Minguo calendar

There is no Minguo calendar (year 100) in this page. - 111.251.198.129 (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

British regnal year

|-
|[[Regnal year|{{ #ifeq: {{#expr: {{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}} > 1706}} | 1 |British|English}} Regnal year]]
|{{British regnal year<noinclude>|{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude>}}

With the exception of the 11 years of the Republic, the Regnal year was used on all legislation past by the Parliaments of England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom up until 1962. Today, Parliaments and Royal proclamations are still dated using the Regnal year. --Philip Stevens (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Code added to the new sandbox. Can you confirm the layout is as you want and that it's working as expected? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is working as expected. Thank you! --Philip Stevens (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done, sandbox code deployed on live template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies! There is a minor error with displaying the Regnal year. It only shows up on a couple of pages, but that's enough. I have added a fixed to sandbox. Thank you! --Philip Stevens (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Template synchronised with sandbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from LutherVinci, 1 July 2011

I believe that the date should be designated "AD" (Anno Domini), because that is the official designation of dates in the Gregorian Calendar. The exact procedure I was considering I have edited in the Sandbox. Thank you. LutherVinci (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Opposed. Place for discussion is WikiProject Years, where no one has been in favor of changing the links in some time. I'm not marking it rejected, because I've disputed LV attempting this for some time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I am disabling the request, since there are objections. Feel free to re-enable it once there is some level of consensus. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Please add Republic of China calendar.

Start and end of years follow Gregorian calendar. AD 1912 = ROC 1 (民國一年), AD 2011 = ROC 100 (民國百年). This calendar is used on all legislation of the Republic of China— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabo-er (talk • contribs) 03:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please make the proposed changes to Template:Year in other calendars/sandbox and then fully test it and then reactivate the {{editprotected}}. Thanks. Our article on this is Minguo calendar so perhaps it would make sense to use the same word? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Buddhist Calander is wrong here

Buddhist Calander is wrong here. The correct format is given below.

{{ #expr: {{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+543 }} - {{ #expr: {{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+544 }}

Singhalawap (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 30 October 2011

| Assyrian calendar | 6774

Man2fly2002 (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done, along with some other minor tweaks: thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

editrequest

Could someone please fix all of the wrongly gapped en dashes in the year ranges, please? year–year, not year – year. See WP:MOSDASH, and in this space-poor environment, it's the last place you'd want to go against the site guidelines. Also, the Chinese script comes first (and could be smaller?), whereas I see other non-roman scripts come second. Tony (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made what I believe to be the correct changes to the sandbox. Can you confirm that the use of dashes is now MoS-conformant on each line? If so I'll push the code out live. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Chris, as far as I can see, this is what is required: Tony (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• ar 167–168
• Bengali calendar 1418
• Berber calendar 2961
• British Regnal year 59 Eliz. 2 – 60 Eliz. 2
• Buddhist calendar 2555
• Burmese calendar 1373
• Byzantine calendar 7519–7520
• Chinese calendar 4647/4707-11-27–4648/4708-12-7
• 庚寅年十一月廿七日

— to — 辛卯年十二月初七日

• Coptic calendar 1727–1728
• Ethiopian calendar 2003–2004
• Hebrew calendar 5771– 5772
• Hindu calendars

*Bikram Samwat	2067–2068
*Saka Samvat	1933–1934 and not 1934-35 as in the box
*Kali Yuga	5112–5113

• Holocene calendar 12011
• Iranian calendar 1389–1390
• Islamic calendar 1432–1433
• Japanese calendar Heisei 23
• (平成23年)
• Korean calendar 4344
• Minguo calendar ROC 100
• 民國100年
• Thai solar calendar 2554
• Unix time 1293840000–1325375999

 Done, as that seems to match the sandbox output. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The Anno Mundi (AM) Calendar

For purely academic purposes, and not to promote its usage, which was based on scientific ignorance, I propose the addition of the Anno Mundi (AM) calendar. This was an invention of Christian Creatonists, who attempted to put forth the idea that the Old Testament event of the creation of Earth occurred in 4004 B.C. or B.C.E., referred to as 1 A.M. (Arriving at the current A.M. year is a simple matter of adding 4,004 to the A.D. or C.E. year, so 2011 becomes 6015.) At the time this concept was promoted, the study of geology had not yet become robust enough to counter the "science" put forth by biblical scholarship, and the further blow delivered by the invention of carbon-dating had not yet occurred. I realize that this calendar never took hold in the hearts and minds of any given culture historically, but it is worth learning what the mistakes of the past were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.75.129.14 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 14 December 2011‎

I would lean against. In Chronology of the Bible, we note variations, with the "preferred" one producing 3924 BCE for the creation of Adam (0 AM). I realize the Ussher chronology leads to 4004 BC being 0 AM (not 1 AM), and the Jehovah's Witnesses calendar leads to yet another date. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Declining. With very little evidence that it was ever seriously used, this is too trivial to include here. This isn't simply a list of every dating system ever conceived. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning; however, the AM calendar was also in a sense trying to serve the same purpose as the recent Holocene calendar, i.e., a numerically positive timeline for all known human history with a zero-point at "the beginning." 99.75.129.14 (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)