Template talk:Year in various calendars/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I really like this template, but there is a problem with the Islamic Calendar. An Islamic year is eleven days shorter than a Gregorian year, this is not accounted for, so many of the years are wrong. There is a similar problem with the Hebrew Calendar. Philip Stevens 16:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you know of a formula which could be used to convert accurately? I have been unable to find one. Warofdreams talk 00:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• The formula for the Islamic Calendar is, year + ((year - 622)/32) - 622 Philip Stevens 06:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Good job on this template. Philip Stevens 06:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

To prevent:

Hindu calendars
- Vikram Samvat  2295 – 
- Shaka Samvat   2296
- Kali Yuga     2162 – 
                 2163
                 5341 – 
                 5342

can the 3 calendars please be put in seperate rows? --

Please help resolve the issue related to this template raised in

I want to include the Ethiopian calendar on here, but I don't think I know enough Wikicode to do it. It's usually 8 years behind the Gregorian (7 from September 11th-December 31st) and has 365 days (+1 on leap years), but I think the new year date has changed by 1 day every 200 years, so I'm not sure exactly how to implement it. Can anyone help me out? I'm willing to better explain the relation between the two. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 04:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have added the calendar but I'm not sure how well it will work beyond 2200CE. Philip Stevens 07:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese seems to be gone. Why? --Apoc2400 14:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that it was just removed, so I put it back again. Warofdreams: Talk about it her if there is a problem --Apoc2400 14:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As you will be able to see if you look at almost any year, the Japanese calendar is not working; it displays "unknown", which is clearly untrue for most years. I'm no expert on the Japanese calendar, so to avoid having inaccurate information on 2000 pages, I removed it. Warofdreams talk 15:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have found a solution. When I edited 1700 I noticed {{Year in other calendars|japanese=[[Kansei]] 1 – 2}}. To override "unknown", just type a code like what I type here. Eventually, Japanese calendar should be back.--Jusjih 14:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Like Japanese calendar, I consider that Chinese era names should be eventually included, but with thousands of years, it will be a major work. I plan to add with Japanese era names together.--Jusjih 14:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

We should consider adding the Julian calendar supporting add-on information such as "common year starting on Friday". I consider that the Gregorian calendar should also support add-on information such as "common year starting on Friday" and for years before 1582, we should automate something like "nowhere used" to be more historically accurate.--Jusjih 14:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem with the julian calendar: the year the template gives is false (see on any year).Benoni 11:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add the Thai solar calendar to this list? I'd add it myself, but I am unfamiliar with the coding and don't want to muck it up. It's simple, it's +543 years from the western year (2007 is 2550).

-Ashoka

• Calendar added. Philip Stevens 17:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The +543 calculation only works starting in 1941 (B.E. 2484), after the start of the Thai year was moved to January 1st (B.E. 2483 officially had only 9 months, April-December). Prior to that the year went from April 1-March 31. So for a particular date 1940 or earlier, if the day is between January 1 and March 31, add 542. If April 1 or later, add 543. Can some fix the coding so it displays the corresponding two-year range correctly for pre-1941 years? For example, 1900 corresponds to 2442-2443. Thanks. --rikker (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Something very strange has happened to this template. It doesn't work properly on the year pages anymore, after todays edits. Can someone, who has knowledge of how it works, look into it and fix it? /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 13:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Which calendars on which years have a problem? Philip Stevens 14:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at any year, like 476 for instance. This template is used there (as well as on hundreds of other pages) and it does not work. I'm now reverting today's changes, so that it will work again. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 18:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

After some work by User:Akanemoto and myself, the Japanese calendar section is close to being back. Akanemoto's version was not working completely, so I did some hacking to make it work (although I ran into really weird issues that led me to roll it back temporarily). In particular, his version wasn't supporting the explicit {{{year}}} parameter (only the implicit {{PAGENAME}}) and the era year for transitional years was showing the previous year's value instead of what it would have been if the emperor had not changed.

The Japanese support depends on the following templates:

• {{Nengo}}: Determines the Japanese era name (nengō) given the Gregorian year
• {{Japanese era}}: Returns the "base" date or kanji for a particular Japanese era name
• {{Japanese year number}}: Returns the year number within the appropriate Japanese era, given the Gregorian year
• {{Japanese year}}: Returns the era name and year within the era, given the Gregorian year (treating the entire year for a new emperor as "Era 1")

For any years that {{

• 476 - Nothing (unknown era)
• 1988 - Shōwa 63 (昭和63年)
• Heisei
  1 (平成年)
• Heisei
  2 (平成2年)
• Heisei
  18 (平成18年)

This was all working before my attempt to suppress the previous era for transitional years where the previous era is not supported by {{Nengo}}. Once I tried that, the template broke horrendously and then rolling back to versions that had been working didn't work either, so I've removed the Japanese support for the time being. But given that I was able to get everything else working before that, I think it should be fairly simple to figure out what the problem was.

I've invited User:Akanemoto here to discuss. Mike Dillon 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the behavior I was seeing was caused by some sort of bug (or at least behavior I don't yet understand). Compare these two revisions of Template talk:Japanese year: original, modified. In the original version, the Japanese year for 2006 (Heisei 18) showed up correctly. When I added a call to {{Japanese year|476}} above it, it broke. I can't see how anything but a bug would cause this. If the call to {{Japanese year|476}} is added after the call to {{Japanese year|2006}} (revision), it works. It looks like there is some sort of "state leak" problem that causes certain ParserFunction calls to be messed up if anything weird happens in an earlier call. Mike Dillon 19:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made an inquiry about this issue at m:Talk:ParserFunctions#Possible bug in ParserFunctions version on en.wikipedia.org. Mike Dillon 19:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As you may have noticed,

Template:Year in other calendars/Japanese subtemplate to reduce the calls to Template:Nengo

itself to 2 calls.

It turns out that the behavior I was seeing is not exactly a "bug", but more of a limitation on call counts for the parser functions. To further reduce the number of calls, I tried out a subtemplate technique for the Chinese calendar portion of this template at User:Mike Dillon/Year in other calendars, in addition to the complexity reducing technique I mentioned in the Complexity comment below. The Chinese subtemplate allows the calls to {{JD}} to be reduced to two calls and the use of User:Mike Dillon/Year in other calendars/internal allows the main template to be the only place that deals with the {{{year}}}/{{CURRENTYEAR}}/{{PAGENAME}} alternation. The internal template only cares about {{{year}}}, which makes it much easier to read and more maintainable.

The combination of User:Patrick's changes and mine means that this template will work on all expected changes within the era range supported by {{Nengo}} and {{Japanese era}} (1652-present). Hopefully the number of parser function calls is few enough that we can start adding support for at least some of the older eras from Japanese era name. If not, it may actually be necessary to introduce the subtemplate for the Chinese section to reduce the {{JD}} calls to the point where the Japanese template can do more work before hitting the limit.

There is a demo of my modified version of this template at User:Mike Dillon/Sandbox2. Mike Dillon 06:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem with the time period 1744 - 1748. There is two Enkyo periods so the link is going to Enkyo disambiguation. The actual link should be Enkyō (Edo period).Bluetooth954 16:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is now fixed. Mike Dillon 02:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the complexity of this template is coming from the attempt to default to {{PAGENAME}}. I'm thinking that this thing should be split into a piece that requires the year to be specified explicitly and a separate piece that calls the former and defaults "year" to <noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>. The pages that currently use this template would use that latter. That way, each of the individual calendar rows would only need to deal with {{{year}}}. Mike Dillon 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

An alternative would be to change all of the current template calls to use year={{subst:PAGENAME}}, which makes sense for me. I don't see why it should be defaulting to the page name anyways since these template calls don't need to be changed once they are set up on the individual year pages. Mike Dillon 18:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this template is far too "esoteric" to have {{

Happy new year. Mike Dillon 16:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the Islamic calendar conversion method as it appeared the original method was incorrect (especially in regards to recent years). This formula is supposedly accurate to a day within 2,500 years, but if any errors are spotted, please make them public. -- tariqabjotu 21:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Would Juche fit in?

I think it would; it seems to be in genuine use throughout a country. Warofdreams talk 14:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

One thing to be careful of is POV in the presentation. It shouldn't be "Korean/North Korean". It should probably be done like the Japanese presentation, something like "Korean \\ -Traditional / -Juche". Mike Dillon 17:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I also express my support for this, and note that the DPRK calendar is almost identical to the calendar of the

Republic of China. It seems strange that we include a calendar that's not in use (Ab urbe condita) while ignoring two that are official dating systems today, in one case used by millions of people. The DPRK/RoC calendar is only needed since 1900. Seektruthfromfacts

20:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The links to the sexagenary cycle of the Chinese calendar don't work on years BC. Could somebody, who understands the syntax, look into it, please? /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 12:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The error is for <56 BCE:

57 BCE

fail.

t

07:35z

{{

editprotected}}. Anyone can view the source of the template, copy it to a sandbox page, and experiment with fixing it; administrator editing is not required until a fix has been tested and agreed upon. CMummert · talk

20:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Year in other calendars/Chinese
| year = {{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}
}}

This will fix the problem with the BC years and make future changes easier to diagnose. Mike Dillon 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

After looking at this closer, this doesn't really work for any year before 5. That's because the earliest date supported by the Chinese calendar templates is 0004-02-10. For years 4 and earlier, the Chinese text is only showing the sexagenary cycle, not the actual year. Fixing this would require expanding the range covered by the Chinese calendar templates and these things are already huge. They are a large part of what makes the pre-expand size of this template around 300k. Mike Dillon 01:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the current calculations take into account the two Chinese calendar reforms that took place during history? The Taichu reform and Jesuits reform? --Voidvector (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Astronomical year numbering could be added for years BC.--Patrick 11:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

{{

Hello; I am requesting to add the

Y Done. --ais523 14:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Having a "Jomon Era" date in the Japanese section of the calendar template seems more than a little goofy to me (as an archaeologist) -- one can argue about the start of the Jomon by nearly 500 years -- generically, archaeological periods definied by material remains are not defined boundaries in the same sense as "ab urbe condita", or a Creation date....they are instead defined by on-going field research, evolution in technical dating methods, and temporary consensus is reached within a climate of debate between area scholars: Cultural chronologies are * not * calendrical systems. If editors and wiki commons consensus cannot distinguish between the two, probably there ought to be an established lower boundary on numbers of people who have (currently or in the past) used a particular dating system which is high enough to weed out the use of Wikipedia to proselytize and promulgate various specialist systems -- a perhaps a minimum limit of 200 people, present * or * past, actively and daily using a dating system, would do it? Regardless of this, the central point remains: Jomon era dating conflates "chronology" with "calendar," and, IMHO, should be removed...69.137.220.244 20:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Assuming you're right, which I have no reason to doubt. I'd support removing Jomon Era. You're definitely right that this template should only show calendar systems that are in common use or have particular academic relevance. Since this template is used across most year articles, not just recent years, this should include former calendars that were once in common use if there is an accepted formula for transforming Gregorian dates to that calendar. Sounds like this isn't the case with the Jomon Era. Mike Dillon 21:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I second that. In addition, its only reference here on the 'pedia is unsourced, so it mightn't even be widely used in Japanese academia for all we know. --Himasaram 01:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

{{

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

{{

| [[Hebrew calendar]]
| {{ #expr: {{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+3760 }} – {{ #expr: {{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+3761 }}

to:

| [[Hebrew calendar]]
| [[ {{ #expr: {{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+3760 }} (Hebrew year) | {{ #expr: {{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+3760 }} ]]
–
[[ {{ #expr: {{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+3761 }} (Hebrew year) | {{ #expr: {{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+3761 }} ]]

Example: In 2007 one can read that: Hebrew calendar 5767 – 5768. After this change, links will be added to the Hebrew years: 5767 – 5768.
${\displaystyle {\mathbb {\color {Blue}_{DMY}} }}$

Change made. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ! ${\displaystyle {\mathbb {\color {Blue}_{DMY}} }}$

Talk

20:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not adding the date in Spanish era? it was used in all the medieval kingdoms of Spain for at least 1300 years, since it was created by Augustus until it was abandoned in the Middle ages--Medievalista 15:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to add

 |républicain={{#ifexpr:{{#if:{{#ifexpr:{{PAGENAME}}}}|{{CURRENTYEAR}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}>1792|
 {{#expr:-1792+{{#if:{{#ifexpr:{{PAGENAME}}}}|{{CURRENTYEAR}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}}} - 
 {{#expr:-1791+{{#if:{{#ifexpr:{{PAGENAME}}}}|{{CURRENTYEAR}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}   
 

Arno Lagrange ✉ 10:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with the julian calendar: the year the template gives is systematically false (see on any year).Benoni 11:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Should Julian even be included at all? When it was first used, years were not numbered but designated by Roman emperors. When years were numbered they were not numbered based on the calendar's inception but based roughly on the date of Jesus Christ's birth. The "Julian year" displayed in the template is in many ways inaccurate. 193.38.170.65 (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to add

Anyway, as a vertical infobox, "Year in other calendars" has been too much trouble, and needs to be changed into something easier. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, we could just make it collapsable. That should solve the space issues without having to make any of those major changes you propose. Warofdreams talk 16:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of making it collapsible. I also like the Horizontal idea. Let's do both. I actually think the "Year in Topic" templates should be horizontal at the bottom, too. Seems more like "See also" material than infobox material to me. Wrad (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly like the idea of making it collapsible, at least for years in the future (where all specific year links should be red, and (at least from 2021 or so, depending on browser selection and screen size), it's longer than the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

06-Jan-2008: Horizontal form: "Template:Year_in_other_calendars_table". After extensive testing and post-analysis, I have used the new horizontal other-calendars table in years "1-100" as a bottom infobox. It is currently equivalent, calendar for calendar, to the vertical form. However, as a bottom table, it could easily display another 10 or 20 cultural calendars, without upsetting an article's vertical formatting. In my post-analysis, I realize that both the vertical & horizontal forms have pros/cons to each. Currently, the vertical other-calendars box fits in well along the right-side of Births in the higher years, 1600-2007, because the list of Births/Deaths is so long that the vertical box doesn't protrude past the end of the text. However, in years "1-100" the vertical box simply crowded the Events text, so displaying the horizontal other-calendars box (at bottoms) has expanded the upper text area in years 1-100. The former crowding of text areas had fostered the truncated view of Events, as short snippets of text "squeezed beside the boxes": in 2006 it had been pathetic...get this: the upper Events area was only 5 words wide: hence Events were often misformatted like "Miss Classified" column ads, of "15 words or less" or expect to pay more (when answering complaints on the talk pages: "Why add such long events?"). Now that the text area has been widened 250%, Events can be written as complete sentences wikilinking more related phrases, rather than as a competition of abbreviation gymnastics. OMG, I can hardly believe the Events-text was 5-words-per-line, but it was. Anyway, now there is an easy choice: vertical or horizontal, to fit whatever text, images or videos occur in a yearly article. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to ask if there is any discussion/consensus regarding the current form of display for the Chinese calendar. As far as I know, the numeric year is not an authoritative for Chinese calendar. In Chinese, the year is always referred to by using

...and... should the "Chinese zodiac" year be included? (A number of now blocked editors are adding it to the current duodecade (twelve years), and moving it there might keep them at bay.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be fantastically cool if this could be added to the template. I understand it would be ridiculously complex to conjure a formula, but as the cherry on the sundae that is this infobox, it is crying out for addition. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

{{

Please add an hCalendar microformat, by changing:

{| class="infobox" style="font-size: 90%; width: 20em; background: white"
|+ style="font-size: 135%;" | '''{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|BC|{{PAGENAME}}|{{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}}} in other calendars'''

to:

{| class="infobox vevent" style="font-size: 90%; width: 20em; background: white"
|+ style="font-size: 135%;" | '''<span class="summary dtstart">{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|BC|{{PAGENAME}}|{{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}}}</span> in other calendars'''

and add {{documentation}}. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 10:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Working as expected. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.