Talk:Gregorian calendar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. |
[edit] Saint Teresa
I put the trivium back. I find the fact that it is also mentioned at other places not a decisive argument: people reading this lemma are not likely to find it elsewhere. Also I think it is sufficiently interesting to mention it.
- With all due respect, don't you think it is more relevant to cite just below the trivia section something like: *see article 1582 for relevant events -- and then expanding the entry on St. Teresa of Avila? I do feel that although the coincidence may be interesting, its relevance to the Gregorian calendar article may be slightly misplaced.
- I think it's interesting (in a trivia sense) that a Catholic saint died on the night when the calendar changed in the Catholic world. Seems like a legitimate trivia item. -- Jim Douglas 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sweden
An event mentioned in this article is an October 15 selected anniversary.
The story about Swedish adoption of the Gregorian calendar currently in the article is not consistent... it says that the extra day in 1712 was required to catch up because the correction had been missed, when in fact the program was to omit days, so any catching up would have been achieved by omitting days not adding them. This external link gives a more complicated but credible story, consistent with this account and this one. I'm not sure how to fix it but will eventually, or if anyone else wants to have a go feel free. Andrewa 09:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. My only excuse is that comparing calendars that are changing is an inherently confusing subject. If a whole country managed to stuff it up so magnificently, I'm not doing too bad. I think I have the story right now, and I've revised the text. Cheers JackofOz 03:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Inconsistency in reversion to 325 notion
Why is it that, though it is often claimed that the intent of Gregory's reform was to restore Easter to the date it occured on at the time of the Nicaean Council of 325, the proleptic Gregorian calendar differs from the Julian calendar by 1 day in 325? Gene Nygaard 15:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is one issue that has concerned me. If the proleptic Gregorian calendar were aligned with the Julian calendar in AD 325, only nine days would be skipped, when the Gregorian was adopted in 1583. Before the Gregorian calendar was adopted it was found that the Vernal equinox was usually on March 10, so suggesting eleven days be skipped on adoption. The decision to skip ten days may have been a compromise.
The root of this problem is that the 21 March equinox date for AD 325 was wrong. It was based on Ptolemy's predictions in which the tropical year was reckoned to be 365.246666..(recurring) days and was by then about a day late.
Karl Palmen 20 Dec 2004.
[edit] Raphael's dates
I recently put a query on Talk: Raffaello Santi, asking why his dates of birth and death are quoted using the proleptic Gregorian calendar when he died a long time before the Gregorian was ever introduced. It's had no response so far. I'm posting this message here as well, in the hope that those who know more than I do about this subject can come up with his true dates. Cheers JackofOz 04:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Added my comments on Talk: Raffaello Santi. Gene Nygaard 06:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Greece not in Eastern Europe
This article says that "The last country of Eastern Europe to adopt the Gregorian calendar was Greece", yet the article on Eastern Europe states that "eastern countries that were never under communist influence, such as Finland in the north and Greece in the south, are never considered part of Eastern Europe".
- It seems like Eastern Europe is wrong, then. In this case, the important thing about Greece is that it's an Eastern Orthodox country. In that sense, Greece is Eastern European. Eugene van der Pijll 17:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I personally should not use "East"-"West" terminology at all in the article. Because it may have both geographical and cultural meanings. For example, the statement in the first sentence: "used by the Western World", looks like just one half of the Earth, if considered geographically. Considering Europe this also causes misunderstanding (in this case even another, "Cold-War" meaning is introduced): because of geographical meaning (e.g. Greece falls to the East in this POV) and the "Cold-War meaning" (by it Greece rather falls to the "Western Europe" category). Cmapm 18:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The phrase "Eastern Europe" did not take on the meaning quoted above until the 20th century, and probably not until the 1940's. At the time that most of "Western" Europe adopted the Gregorian calendar, none of Europe yet met the quoted definition.
[edit] Something is fishy here, church wouldn't approve 10 day slip!
> A deletion of ten days was made, when switching to the Gregorian calendar.
Looks unbelievable. The church would never do that. The Bible says God created the world in six days and rested on the 7th. If the first sunday mass after the reform would not be exactly seven sunset and seven sunrises after the last sunday mass held before the reform, it would be invalid, because that would not be on the seventh day any more. <--> Jesus himself established the celebration of the day right after sabbath, on every seventh day.
Thus, if the ten day slip is true, in fact all "sunday masses" held since the reform are fake and invalid and it looks like hundreds of millions of people, who got null and void communions, are burning in hell just because of this mistake by the catholic church. Plain impossible.
If the church had to reform the calendar, it would definitely wait a little longer, until the difference becomes exactly two weeks and switch then, so the first Sunday Mass held after the reform would still be exactly (N x 7) days after Jesus Christ established the Sunday. Why would the RC church run to make a 10 day switch, when it already had 1-1/2 millenia behind its back? They could wait a few centuries more.
Did anyone honestly investigate this issue? I think if true, this must be the true reason the orthodox christians stick with the old calendar, not the western papal - eastern autokefal authority clash.
Thanks for your attention, Sincerely: Tamas Feher "etomcat@freemail.hu"
- The ten-day slip is true. But you're also right that the church did not want to interfere with the 7-day cycle of the week, so that cycle was not changed: Thursday October 4, 1582 (Jul) was followed by Friday October 15, 1582 (Greg). The last sunday mass in the Julian calendar was on Sunday Sep 30; the first in the new calendar was Sunday Oct 17; these dates were precisely 7 days apart.
- So this means that the day of the week was the same in both calendars for a certain day, but not for a certain date (e.g. October 15 1582 was a Monday in the Julian calendar, but a Friday in the Gregorian). Eugene van der Pijll 20:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Except in Alaska, which switched sides of the International Dateline and therefore had 48 consecutive hours of the same day of the week.
[edit] Revealing the shape of Gregorian calendar adoption history
When I first read the existing chart I found it confusing, so I've edited a draft-for-comment image of the original programmed chart rendering. I've placed the national adoption dates in order, to reveal a graph shape of history. Reordering reveals a statistically attractive double watershed curve in three sections-- the initial cascade early adoption, the slower progressive adoption period, and the final cascade collapse of the anti-adopters' paradigm. Some version of the previous phrase could be added to the text. This would bring the reader's attention to the effects of historic facts in forming the graph's shape-- facts mentioned elsewhere in the article.
Maybe the original was done that way to save visual space. I'm not sure that's necessary, but if so, I have vertically compressed the draft image to the original's size. The resulting graphic text got more blurred by vertical compression. Is a shorter, wider font available to clean that up in auto-rendering of the chart?
None of the years shown are specified as "OS" in case that was ever an issue, say, in Sweden. Approaching this confusing subject as a non-expert, I would prefer a note declaring that all of the adoption years shown are valid for both calendars.
For consistency, Sweden should be dissected from the Sweden & Finland time line, rendered on a color bar with internal markers at 1700, 1712, 1753, and placed just below Protestant Germany.
Seems like a lot of countries are missing; were they all colonies? Maybe another note should state that.
- Milo 07:01, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
[edit] Scottish Calender Switch
Althought most people agree that Scotland changed New Year's Day in 1600 to Jan 1st, there is some dispute over whether or not it also changed to the Gregorian calender, before England did, on that date. This would make sense with Nova Scotia for example but since no one can come to definite agreement about the subject I think that at least the dispute should be given some mention in the article instead of just taking one line. I know this is obviously not the main point of the article but it is a factual moot point.
[edit] Clavius year
I am replacing the following paragraph added by Ross UK:
- First, it was necessary to accuartely observe and measure the orbital period of the Earth (or, as it was often perceived by many geocentric thinkers of the time, the duration of one complete apparent revolution of the Sun through its ecliptic). Without this information it would not be possible to model accurately the passage of one year between vernal equinoxes. The orbital period was successfully determined by Christopher Clavius. He achieved the task using only the rudimentary techniques and resources available to him; he had no calculator, slide rule or logarithm table, nor were such modern-day axioms as the decimal point in universal use. Yet he obtained a precise result, concluding that the Julian calendar overestimated the year by 664 seconds. The calendar which resulted is accurate to within about 20 minutes per century - or 12 seconds per year - and has accordingly lost less than two hours in the 423 years of its existence; a truly monumental achievement which has earned Clavius fame and a lasting legacy. To date it is unknown precisely how he accomplished his task.
It is not supported by the cited reference Gregorian reform of the calendar, which states that the chosen year was the year used by two major astronomical tables, provided that their more precise years are rounded to two sexagesimal positions, 365;14,33 days. — Joe Kress 04:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for the clarification, it is valuable to have access to a source which I have not seen. I would certainly be interested to know more about the role of Clavius if, as you say, he did not perform the calculation. If the tables gave this value, who wrote the tables? See http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/jg/jg2.htm for some of my information. --Ross UK 00:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] When?
When was the gregorian callender developed?
- There's no such thing as a "callender". The article is full of detailed info about when the Gregorian calendar was introduced. Have a read and come back if you have a specific question. JackofOz 03:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Usage for the British colonial period
- George Washington was born on 11 February (OS), his birthday is now celebrated on 22 February (NS).
I am not sure that GW is the best example to give because he lived through the transition. This could just be the anniversary phenomenon see with the Battle of the Boyne. What was usually done in the colonial period for people who died before 1752? And for that matter for those who lived through the transition? Philip Baird Shearer 20:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- An example of the standard American practice that is often mentioned is: the Mayflower Compact was signed on 11 November 1620 (Julian) but is reqarded as having occurred on 21 November 1620 (Gregorian) [1] [2] [3]. — Joe Kress 05:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] USSR
The article lists two separate dates for adoption of Gregorian calendar by Russia (1918) and USSR (1922). This got me thinking. USSR was formed in 1922 from four constituents: Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia and Trans-Caucasian republic. Presumably, the Council of People's Commissars that ordered the adoption of Grigorian calendar in Russia had no power over the other three members. Therefore, either they adopted Gregorian calendar on their own prior to 1922 (in which case any mention of 1922 in this article is meaningless), or they were "switched" to the new calendar on the day Soviet Union was created (December 30, 1922). Which means that there was a whole country out there that "skipped" a New Year - adoption of new calendar must have meant that December 30 was followed by January 13, 1923.
I did some digging, it seems that Ukraine and Belorussia did adopt Gregorian calendar on their own at different times during 1918. I couldn't find any information about Trans-Caucasian republic. --Itinerant1 08:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- I believe, that the date December 30, 1922 will be meaningless only if exact or approximate dates will be mentioned for all four republics and all four dates will be before December 30, 1922. Cmapm 01:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Reply to the mistakes above: My friend, Belorussia and Ukraine had been already ONE country - Russia (not A PART of Russia). To make it easy for understanding: You can't divide New York from Washington. It was the NAME (the Soviet Union) that appeared. But the country had been existing for a 1000 years by that time. Please save your time and refer to the source (if you're interested in real facts).
- On the contrary, the USSR was formed in 1922 as a federation of the Russian, the Ukrainian, the Belorussian and the Transkaukasian Socialist Soviet Republics. Belarus and Ukraine were part of Russia prior to the October Revolution but not part of the Bolshevik Russia. Str1977 (smile back) 16:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Number of leap years starting on a given day of the week
Although the number of leap years per cycles is stated at 97, the allocation to how many started on which day of the week adds up to 98. Huh?
I've reproduced this a couple of ways and so am now confident that the correct information is: Sun, Mon, Tu, ... , Sat respectively 15, 13, 14, 14, 13, 15, 13. So, the only issue was with Wednesday which was stated at 15 and should be 14. I'll correct the main page to so indicate.
The sequence is also symmetrical as I'd expect. It is symmetical about leap years starting on Saturday. The year 2000 is such a year and the arrangement of Gregorian leap years is symmetrical about that year. Karl 20 Oct 2005
[edit] Beginning of year
This section details changes made before the Gregorian Calendar was adopted. Should this infomation be elsewhere? Also the table of new year change date may be mistaken by a careless reader to be table of Gregorian Calendar adoption dates. I think the table should be moved elsewhere such as Julian Calendar or New year.
Karl 27 Oct 2005
- The table and text are mine. I put it here to show that the Gregorian calendar did not change the beginning of the year to January 1 as many think. It shows that most Western European countries had already adopted January 1 as the first day of the numbered year before the Gregorian calendar was promulgated. "Careless readers" should be disuaded by a caption at the head of the table such as "Adoption of January 1 as beginning of year". — Joe Kress 02:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
A table that only shows the dates that various countries adopt 1 January new year fails to make this point. I'll may add a column to show the Gregorian calendar adoption date the different or not between the two would demonstrate the point.
Karl 28 Oct 2005
- To Oz1cz: I gather you disagree with Mike Spathaky since don't think Denmark and Sweden changed the beginning of their numbered year to January 1 at the same time that Prussia did (1559). Furthermore, you give an extremely early date for Denmark (between 1300 and 1349), but don't think that Sweden changed at the same time. Are you sure that you are not inadvertently refering to the period when it named January 1 its New Year's Day? The two are not the same. I remember reading a source that had its earliest year about 1450, but nothing earlier. What is your source? — Joe Kress 06:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- My source is a Danish book, namely R.W. Bauer: "Calender for Aarene fra 601 til 2200", which is a major source for calendar information about Denmark. It is old (first published in 1868) but it has been reprinted several times later (in 1993 as ISBN 87-7423-083-2).
-
- Here is what that books says: "Denmark usually began the year at Christmas, although also 1 January and 12 August have been used. In the library of Strasbourg there is an old almanac written in runes in which the year starts on 1 January. From the beginning of the 14th century the beginning of the year has always been 1 January."
-
- The book also claims that 1 January has been the start of the year in Sweden since the beginning of the 16th century. I missed that yesterday when I updated the page, so it didn't make it into the table.
- --Oz1cz 22:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] leap year rule
why isn't the rule for determining whats a leap year mentioned in this article
iirc a year is a leap year if its divisible by 4 unless its divisible by 100 in which case its not a leap year unless its divisible by 400 in which case it is a leap year. Plugwash 04:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- It is mentioned: see section Gregorian calendar#Invention. Eugene van der Pijll 09:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Riots
Can anyone tell what the citation is for this?
- Four years later, someone running for a seat in Parliament used the campaign slogan "Give us back our eleven days!", which created false stories of riots at the change-over.
Every source I can find seems to confirm that there were actually riots (including deaths in Bristol). KWH 07:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Actually, historical researchers combing through contemporary newspapers haven't been able to find such riots. Most of this seems to have come from a Hogarth painting of ca. 1755 which depicts a heavily-contested parliamentary election in which the calendar issue was one of the slogans dragged in to attack the incumbent. I've added a thumbnail to the article page. Churchh 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Added further info on the parliamentary election, and Hogarth's depiction of it. Churchh 22:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] February
Do we know the reason why February was chosen to have 28 days (usually). Why not 30 days for January and 29 for February?
212.127.15.34 13:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Norrette
- At the time the Roman Calendar was devised, the Romans considered even numbers bad luck. Therefore they tried to make months of 29 or 31 days. But they also wanted the number of days in a year to be odd and close to the length of 12 synodic months, so they made the last month, February, 28 days and the length of the year 355 days. This made February an unlucky month, but fortunately it was the shortest, and even shorter (23 or 24 days) when a leap month was added. By the time the Julian Calendar was invented, even numbers weren't considered that bad, but February still had an unlucky reputation, so its length was kept short, and extra days were added to other months. Indefatigable 17:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, knowing it used to be the last month has some kind of logic to it. Doesn't help us in programming dates though ;-) 212.127.15.34 17:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Norrette
What I heard is that February originally was 29 days long (as the traditionally last month), but that as Augustus prolonged the month named in his honour from 30 to 31, February had to relinquish another day. Str1977 (smile back) 15:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is a historical myth: see Julian calendar#Month lengths for the details. Indefatigable 19:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] William Shakespeare
Can anyone here help with the discussion at Talk:William Shakespeare#date of birth/death? In particular, see my post today. AndyJones 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. AndyJones 20:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ireland
does the statement of britan in this article include ireland? if so it should probablly be changed to british isles. Plugwash 14:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ireland had its own parliament then, but I assume things were synchronized. Churchh 15:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Russian Olympic team
There's a story I've seen several times that the Russian team missed a large part of one of the pre-WW1 Olympics due to Gregorian/Julian disparity, but I'm not sure which. Churchh 22:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I doubt it.
-G
[edit] Zero year? Cardinal vs ordinal
The article says that the traditional proleptic Gregorian calendar (like the Julian calendar) does not have a year 0 and instead uses the counting numbers 1, 2, … Surely it's actually the case that these calendars use ordinal numbers rather than cardinal? Thus 1 A.D. is the first year of Our Lord, not year number 1 as the article implies. Of course the same clearly applies to days of the month, but there is no mention of the lack of a day zero in each month. Dougg 01:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] George Washington did NOT change the date of his birthday
This was changed for him, as for everyone else, by the Act of Parliament that instituted the new calendar. This also applied to all other legal anniversaries (with a few named exceptions). It therefore makes perfect sense for the US to celebrate his birthday on the 22nd, because that is its legal date. TharkunColl 16:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Congress can change the date of your birth, but not the date on which you celebrate it. Many people chose to continue to celebrate the old-style calendar day given for their birth in the family bible (one imagines this might have particularly included the group of children whose birthdays fell in the dropped days, who wouldn't have gotten a birthday day that year, if they'd stayed with the government edict-- one wonders if their parents told them they'd missed it, too bad). Washington was one of those who didn't do this, and switched to the new style date. Which was the sensible thing to do, since the new style calender date (not the old) would actually be the date on which people born under the old style calender were chronologically a more or less exact number of tropical years older from their birth. SBHarris 20:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have read that George Washington continued to celebrate his birthday on 11 February, even after it became a date in the Gregorian calendar, but magnanimously accepted Happy Birthday wishes from others who insisted that it should be celebrated on 22 February. — Joe Kress 06:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chuck Norris and (Sir) Bog Saget???
I'm not sure that the implementation of the Gregorian Calendar had much to do with Chuck Norris and Bob Saget, although it might have involved some "beating the crap out of" certain people. Someone may want to alter this.
- That vandalism was removed only 1 hour 22 minutes after it appeared. You had the misfortune of viewing it in the interim. — Joe Kress 04:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cycles
The article states:
- Days of the week in years may also repeat after 6, 11, 12, 28 or 40 years. Intervals of 6 and 11 are only possible with common years, while intervals of 28 and 40 are only possible with leap years. An interval of 12 years can occur with either type, but only when there is a dropped leap year in between. (emphasis added)
The portion in bold is what I have a question about. The examples I can find are intervals beginning with years that end in 90, 91, 97, or 98, none of which are leap years. (For instance, the 12-year interval 2090 to 2102.) --Spiffy sperry 00:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've now changed the can occur with either type phrase. --Spiffy sperry 16:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Long/short
There have been some changes back and forth. Here are the facts:
Mean Julian Calendar year: 365.25 days
Mean Gregorian Calendar year: 365.2425 days
Mean tropical year: 365.2422 days (not 365.22 as I inadvertently wrote in an edit comment - how does one change and edit comment?)
So the Julian Calendar year was too long. --Oz1cz 17:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I do not know of any way to edit a comment once you have clicked "Save page". That is the reason that the latest Wiki software includes a preview of both your comment as well as the page itself when you click "Show preview". Previewing your comment is especially useful if you include a link or some HTML code in the comment. — Joe Kress 07:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Accuracy
So, as I understand it, there currently no agreed upon solution for a 1 day discrepancy every 3300 years, nor for the slowing of the earth's rotation, nor for slow changes in the earth's orbit. I realize there is a very generous deadline, but what is being done about it? And, does this mean my descendants could someday wake up at 24:01 on February 30th?--Zerothis 07:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- A calendar is a mathematical construction and as such has indefinite validity. For example, the Julian calendar is still used to schedule feasts in the Orthodox (and other) churches: today (7 January Gregorian) is Christmas day (25 December Julian). If and when some renovation is necessary depends on what criteria people want their calendar to fulfill. Maybe it should track the seasons. But the seasons have different lengths and these slowly vary anyway all the time; the Gregorian calendar was designed to keep the vernal equinox close to 21 March (but does a pretty poor job, with a variation of 53 hours). But in 3 millennia maybe people won't care as much about the seasons as they used to in 1582- it is not up to us to prescribe what they should do. In fact there is no single authority that can decide what calender you should use and what it should look like. In any case, calendars count mean solar days affected by the slowing down of the rotation of the Earth. You cannot have them ruled by more constant atomic or ephemeris time. The accumulated error DeltaT grows quadratically, so this can never be compensated in any existing calendar, because these always have a fixed ratio of so many mean solar days in a year (of whatever type of year). But this can be corrected if desired by dropping an extra leap day occasionally, although preferably more timely than the Gregorian reform which had to drop 10 days at once. Tom Peters 12:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Basically, the Leap second. Davebenson 04:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Corrections & question
- I have made various corrections and tweaks. If anyone has a problem with this, please ask.
- What is the meaning behind the blue marking of Lorraine and Nova Scotia?
- Str1977 (smile back) 18:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Gregorian calendar#Timeline: It looks like those two areas were unique in that they adopted the Gregorian calendar, but then went back to the Julian calendar for a period of time before finally and permanently switching over to the Gregorian calendar. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 4099?
I had cause to look up Easter dates and calculations, and there seems to be an upper limit of 4099 on the year. Is this a Gregorian calendar issue or an Easter issue? I would guess that it's an Easter issue, especially considering the "Approximately every 487 centuries..." phrase that I see in this article. I'm not certain if the article mentions exactly when a day's adjustment will be needed (presumably a dropped leap year), but if not, might want to. --Scott McNay 01:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is no upper limit when calculating the date of the Gregorian Easter (or the Julian Easter for that matter). 4099 is the limit in [4] because its author used a table lookup method. In [5] there is no limit because the internal calculation includes all solar and lunar equations (Easter 4100 is 11 April). The "solar equation" subtracts one from the Gregorian epact whenever a centurial leap day is dropped (3 times every 400 years). The "lunar equation" adds one to the epact 8 times every 2500 years. As long as both are considered, there is no limit. See computus and epact for the details. The Julian Easter uses neither equation — its epacts repeat every 19 years endlessly. — Joe Kress 09:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Use of Slash
I'm new to editing in Wikipedia and am reviewing articles of interest to me for style and format based on what I have read in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. In perusing this article, this sentence popped out at me as something to avoid per my study of the Manual of Style:
But because the start of the year did not change until the same year that the Gregorian calendar was introduced, OS/NS is particularly relevant for dates which fall between 1 January and 25 March. (emphasis added)
Rather, the OS/NS might be reworded for less ambiguity:
But because the start of the year did not change until the same year that the Gregorian calendar was introduced, the Old or New Style is particularly relevant for dates which fall between 1 January and 25 March.
Again, I'm new to editing here and don't wish to offend.
Best wishes, Jon Moss 15:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC) JonMoss
- It is shorthand. If you find it unclear and|or ;-) confusing go ahead and expand. Tom Peters 23:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
