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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Time Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

First day of the week controversy

Color of Sunday dates

originally from Talk:Common year starting on Monday: — Christoph Päper 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, isn't highlighting Sunday like that cultural POV? 24.18.215.132 22:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and it makes it look like the articles havent been created yet. im changing it. 132.181.7.1 04:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm going through the templates now and removing the red sundaysRavensfan5252 00:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're getting worked up over nothing. Not only Western but East Asian calendars use red Sundays. Not making the Sundays red makes the calendar harder to use, as it is easy to make a mistake reading the calendar if you are used to weeks starting on Monday, even with the weekday labels at the top. The convention that "if only one day of the week is colored, then that day is Sunday" is more international than either "start the week on Sunday" or "start the week on Monday", and refusal to use it in an Internet reference work used by people of all nations seems to me too "politically correct". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.69.183 (talk • contribs)

Originally from Talk:Leap year starting on Tuesday: — Christoph Päper 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Beginning on a Monday

originally from Talk:Common year starting on Monday: — Christoph Päper 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do these begin on a Monday? Is this really the standard in English-speaking cultures? -Branddobbe 07:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Correct" it? Welcome to the real world. Some people treat Sunday as the first day of the week, some Monday. Some published calendars are one way, some the other. Neither is more correct. In actuality there isn't any "first" day of the week, because every day is preceded by one and followed by another, but since we need a convention for convenience, we choose one. It's becoming more and more common these days to start on Monday because it fits in with the bureaucratic calendar and the weekend. 91.105.41.135 (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me your source. Georgia guy (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, these calendars need to be Sunday thru Saturday with no week number. Let's look at your points:

"Welcome to the real world." Uninformative and slightly insulting.

"Some people treat Sunday as the first day of the week, some Monday."^{[citation needed]} Which people? Who? How many? How do you know?

"Some published calendars are one way, some the other."^{[citation needed]}

"It's becoming more and more common these days"^{[citation needed]} How common? More than 50%? Where do you get your numbers? Illiteracy is becoming more common too; shall we rewrite the encyclopedia accordingly?

"it fits in with the bureaucratic calendar" What's that? And why would anybody want to "fit in" with a bureaucracy?

"and the weekend" How does the weekend "not fit" with the Sunday-first calendar? Do you know some people who are confused by that arrangement?

72.208.56.42 (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Certes, does "we all" in your sentence mean all living human beings, or everyone of a certain kind?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "everyone interacting in a single group", such as all WP readers who discuss weeks. A different starting day works in a self-contained context such as a Saudi company working Saturday to Wednesday, just as we get by driving on the left here in the UK. I think the reference to ISO is valid even if the road analogy is not perfect. Certes (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, look at List of radio stations in Georgia. There is a table that lets you put the station list in any of several different ways. Does anyone know if there's a way to set this up so that users will be allowed to let this start on either Monday or Sunday similar to how the table of radio stations allows users to list the radio stations by callsign or frequency?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That table uses class="wikitable sortable". I guess that is a wiki software feature, and you would need to raise a bugzilla change request to have something similar implemented for calendars. Please can someone more familiar with the wiki software confirm or correct this? Certes (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

In England, as in the rest of the UK, British Standard BS EN 28601[1] implements the European Standard EN 28601, which is identically worded to ISO 8601. However, this Wikipedia is "English" in language rather than nationality, so I think a direct reference to the international standard is more relevant. Certes (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears that ISO 8601 specifies that "ISO" weeks begin with Monday, but is silent on calendars. A calendar with unnumbered weeks can clearly go either way. (For what it's worth, the IRS rules on full-week accounting (aka a 52-53 week fiscal year) allow the business to specify the start day of the week and the criteria for determing which weeks including January 1 are in which tax year.) As for common usage, my employer does have a fiscal calendar in which weeks start with Monday. However, it has fiscal months consisting of full weeksand the payroll periods are Saturday–Friday, so that's not relevant here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Weeks starting on Monday?

originally from Talk:Common year starting on Monday: — Christoph Päper 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

May I suggest that we answer this question under the similar heading Beginning on a Monday above? My response is already there. Certes (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New calendar format

originally from Talk:Common year starting on Monday: — Christoph Päper 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"New"?? The week starting on Sunday dates to prehistoric times. The week starting Monday is a novelty introduced in the 20th century. I don't think there's any English-speaking country where it's considered standard. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "new" in the sense of "different from what had been done before on this particular page". My point was about the move from using the template to having the calendar as explicit text, rather than the Sunday/Monday issue which we've already debated. I think the template used previously was clear and well laid out but that is one opinion amongst many and I hope to hear other people's thoughts. Certes (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I went to Template:Year3 and it said that the "start-on-Monday" week comes from Template:Month3, which in turn I still cannot find where it comes from. Georgia guy (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the best template to use, Template:CalendarCustom. Georgia guy (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Does anyone object if we change this page again to use Template:CalendarCustom? As my contribution to the civil consensus, I propose we keep its default of Sun1st for now but consider changing to Mon1st if a majority of people object. Certes (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to either the CalendarCustom template or the weeks starting on Sunday. Georgia guy (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that I have seen the planned Template that you wish to put in I feel I have no objections, and personally I prefer calenders that have weeks starting on Sundays than on Mondays anyway. Nohomers48 (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You could try WP:RFC but I don't think you need to. These articles get a very low number of hits so I don't think you'll get much input - or objection. If you've got a basic consensus, you can use edit-and-wait to confirm it. I'm not sure of their true utility. But I think CalendarCustom is similar enough to the previous format with the added ability to set the starting day and the only objection will come from those who feel the need to see the week number. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 14:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I added an option to {{Calendar}} so that you can hide the year. Use {{Calendar|year=2007|hideyear=yes}}. That template uses CalendarCustom, BTW. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 23:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mufka. So if we use Calendar|hideyear, the main differences between the old (27 July 2007 to 19 March 2009) and future versions will be:

remove week numbers
start on Sunday rather than Monday (with option to revert if opposed by consensus)
minor formatting differences such as adding << and >> links to previous and next month

Does that sound like a solution? Certes (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No progress

originally from Talk:Common year starting on Monday: — Christoph Päper 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The other 13 pages with the common/leap years don’t have this issue, apparently.
---Schweiwikist (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other 13 pages have issues which are so similar that it makes sense to discuss them all in one place. We picked this talk page because it already contained previous discussions about other matters relating to all 14 pages. Some of the other talk pages have links to here and could possibly be replaced by redirects to here. Certes (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday at the End?

originally from Talk:Common year starting on Sunday: — Christoph Päper 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The International conventions on the subject state that weeks begin on Monday. Do you have any reference for that claim about Sunday being the first day of the week "for two thousand years and more"? Loqu (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Originally from Talk:Leap year starting on Sunday: — Christoph Päper 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Changing the calendar at last

originally from Talk:Common year starting on Monday: — Christoph Päper 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank God. 71.96.136.182 (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jimp (talk · contribs), it’s just that it used to be Monday-first as in all relevant international standards and that puzzled several users independently, so they raised their voice here – I can assume at best that most of them are from the US. In many other places (primarily English speaking or not), people are used to encounter Monday-first print and electronic calendars (i.e. with both weekend days at the end of the week), although they’re quite likely to also have seen Sunday-first calendars, because a) that used to be the standard in many places, b) is still used in Christian churches and c) is used in badly localized products designed in or for the US market. Remember that enWP is read by a lot of people who learned English as a second language, perhaps they’re even more than native speakers. I for one found the current solution strange and edited Common year starting on Sunday today to include both variants, in a way similar to what you suggested back in 2013, but without {{hidden}} – before I looked at the Talk pages, which I then combined, so prior discussions are less likely to be overlooked. I decided that the “international” calendar layout should use week numbers according to ISO 8601, but the English/US variant could remain without. This also resulted in changing the layout from 3→×4↓ to 4→×3↓ (i.e. first left to right then top to bottom), although I think 3↓×4→ would be even clearer if visible at once. — Christoph Päper 20:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The seven-day week came from the Babylonians via the Jews and then the Christians. According to ancient tradition, Sunday is the first day of the week (God is said to have rested on the seventh day, Saturday, the Jewish sabbath). I'd say that ancient tradition is a relevant international standard. Sure, much can be attributed to religious influence and WP is a non-religious medium but, nevertheless, it has shaped the way we thing of the week. Therefore, Sunday-first calendars are the more common form in English-speaking countries (not just the US). So, what it actually used to be (for thousands of years) is Sunday-first and Monday-first calendars have yet to catch on to the extent of over-taking the older's prominence in English. As for those for whom English is a second language, let them get used to the way we do things in English. This is not to regard them as any less important, valuable or worthwhile; it's just part of learning the language to get used to how things are done in it. Jimp 06:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing in favor of completely reverting to Monday-first, because it seems obvious that this confuses or annoys some people, but Sunday-first does too. I don’t want to create 14 or 15 separate Common/Leap ISO year starting on …day articles.

Just for the sake of reference I quote below a part from Unicode CLDR’s supplementalData.xml. The data can also be viewed in tabular fashion or per locale (language/country). CLDR lists GB (with a deviating variant) and default 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)[reply]

<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>

Purpose

Query

Originally from Talk:Leap year starting on Friday — Christoph Päper 14: 22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

The purpose of this page and the 13 other similar pages is to provide information about the calendar months etc. of such a year. It will is linked from examples of such years (e.g. 1988 and 2016) . This will then enable for example you to find out what day of the week a given month occurs.

All 14 of these pages can be accessed from Dominical Letter. Karl Palmen - 6th July 2005

Comment on these pages

originally from Talk:Common year starting on Monday — Christoph Päper 14: 22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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)[reply]

I think it's useful. But it's sort of like a phonebook too. I'm inclined to keep it as is though. --HappyCamper 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of all these pages is to provide a calendar for a particular type of year. See pages that link to these. Karl 10:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, these are very useful articles. I'd also suggest supplementing them with common holidays highlighted. Flibirigit 19:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just found this incredibly helpful in a conversation about years and how they are laid out according to calender format. I am all for keeping this. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 00:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usefulness

Originally from Talk:Leap year starting on Saturday — Christoph Päper 14: 22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

How is this page useful? -- Annonymus user (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A: Common year starting on Sunday

Here is someones anonymous contribution

…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 edit):

Extended content

2006

January 2006
	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
(0)	26	27	28	29	30	31	1
(1)	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
(2)	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
(3)	16	17	18	19	20	21	22
(4)	23	24	25	26	27	28	29
(5)	30	31	1	2	3	4	5

February 2006
	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
(5)	30	31	1	2	3	4	5
(6)	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
(7)	13	14	15	16	17	18	19
(8)	20	21	22	23	24	25	26
(9)	27	28	1	2	3	4	5

March 2006
	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
(9)	27	28	1	2	3	4	5
(10)	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
(11)	13	14	15	16	17	18	19
(12)	20	21	22	23	24	25	26
(13)	27	28	29	30	31	1	2

April 2006
	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
(13)	27	28	29	30	31	1	2
(14)	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
(15)	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
(16)	17	18	19	20	21	22	23
(17)	24	25	26	27	28	29	30

May 2006
	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
(18)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
(19)	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
(20)	15	16	17	18	19	20	21
(21)	22	23	24	25	26	27	28
(22)	29	30	31	1	2	3	4

June 2006
	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
(22)	29	30	31	1	2	3	4
(23)	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
(24)	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
(25)	19	20	21	22	23	24	25
(26)	26	27	28	29	30	1	2

July 2006
	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
(26)	26	27	28	29	30	1	2
(27)	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
(28)	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
(29)	17	18	19	20	21	22	23
(30)	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
(31)	31	1	2	3	4	5	6

August 2006
	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
(31)	31	1	2	3	4	5	6
(32)	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
(33)	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
(34)	21	22	23	24	25	26	27
(35)	28	29	30	31	1	2	3

September 2006
	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
(35)	28	29	30	31	1	2	3
(36)	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
(37)	11	12	13	14	15	16	17
(38)	18	19	20	21	22	23	24
(39)	25	26	27	28	29	30	1

October 2006
	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
(39)	25	26	27	28	29	30	1
(40)	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
(41)	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
(42)	16	17	18	19	20	21	22
(43)	23	24	25	26	27	28	29
(44)	30	31	1	2	3	4	5

November 2006
	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
(39)	25	26	27	28	29	30	1
(40)	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
(41)	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
(42)	16	17	18	19	20	21	22
(43)	23	24	25	26	27	28	29
(44)	30	31	1	2	3	4	5

December 2006
	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
(48)	27	28	29	30	1	2	3
(49)	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
(50)	11	12	13	14	15	16	17
(51)	18	19	20	21	22	23	24
(52)	25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Already done

This table of wikilinks moved to Talk

…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)[reply]

I have put the template back to where it was under the References section. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

External links modified

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120402145837/http://jonstlouis.htmlplanet.com/1_cal/perpet/m01.htm to http://jonstlouis.htmlplanet.com/1_cal/perpet/m01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2101, 2107 and missing a day

I’m trying to find a calendar that 2101 and 2107 starts on a Sunday, but rather it starts on Saturday

2073, 2079, and 2090 all start and end on Sunday
2084 is a leap year it starts on Saturday and ends on Sunday
2096 is a leap year it starts on Sunday and ends on Monday

1973, 1979, 1990, 2001, and 2007 all started and ended on Monday
1984 was a leap year started on Sunday and ended on Monday (follows same calendar as 2096)
1996 was a leap year started on Monday and ended on Tuesday (should’ve followed the same as 2108)

When I try {{#time: Y-m-d|Sat 7/8/2107}} gives an output as 2107-07-09 adds a day.
Same applies with {{#time: Y-m-d|Fri 7/7/2107}} gives an output as 2107-07-08 adds a day.

July 7, 2107 is a Thursday rather than a Friday which occurs in 2073, 2079, and 2090.
July 8, 2107 is a Friday rather than a Saturday which occurs in 2073, 2079, and 2090.

Is there a year that is no leap year, that breaks the sub-28 cycle?

--2605:A000:1103:55F:D8DC:7710:49DE:CEFD (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the 28-year cycle is broken because 2100 is not a leap year. The years 2073, 2079, 2090, and 2096 (a leap year) all start on Sunday; while adding 28 years to them give 2101, 2107, 2118, and 2124 (also a leap year) respectively, which all start on Saturday. GTrang (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B: Common year starting on Saturday

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

Already done

New unusual format overruns small screens

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)[reply]

Already done

C: Common year starting on Friday

Incorrect calendar

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)

I'd splice together the calendar from

Leap year starting on Friday (Jan-Feb) with the calendar from Leap year starting on Thursday (Mar-Dec). -- Karl Palmen 29 Nov 2004

I've copied in April to December from Leap year starting on Thursday. January to March is more complicated to do, so have left them for the time being.

I note that linking the days of the month makes the HTML unmanageable. The days of the month can be accessed via the month linked. --Karl Palmen 30 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)

Already done

Repeated addition of Leap Years

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)[reply]

February 29th in a non leap year

{{ayd|1983-06-21|2100-02-29}} should output 116 years, 253 days but instead it outputs an error

Why does age templates output invalid dates as errors?, as February 29 in a non-leap year is an invalid date, February 29 in a leap year is a valid date.

--98.31.29.4 (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the code that implements the {{ayd}} template, but it is likely that it passes the date to some function that either returns a date the template can work with, or returns an error message. The various functions do not necessarily have any ability to provide a "close" answer, or convert the date into one that actually exists, such as March 1, 2100. So I am not a bit surprised at the error code.

Just in case you weren't aware, in the Gregorian calendar (which is what all the date-related functions I know of in Wikipedia work with) a year that is evenly divisible by 100, but not by 400, is a common year, so 2100 is a common year. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decade

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)[reply]

D: Common year starting on Thursday

E: Common year starting on Wednesday

F: Common year starting on Tuesday

G: Common year starting on Monday

New unusual format overruns small screens

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)[reply]

Already done

Accessibility

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)[reply]

AG: Leap year starting on Sunday

BA: Leap year starting on Saturday

The clearly confirmable actual fact of the exact identitiy of the periods within any period of four centuries in the Gregorian calendar

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)[reply]

Part of 21st century

2000 is part of 21st century. --40bus (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weekends

Thread copied from OP's talk page Meters (talk)

On the Wikipedia page, "Leap year starting on Saturday", I changed "53 full weekends" to "53 Saturdays and Sundays" a few times, but it keeps getting edited to the "53 full weekends" by another user. The reason why I was changing it is because for most people, the weekend starts on Friday after school / work, meaning that "Saturday and Sunday" isn't a full weekend. 109.255.55.49 (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you several times to discuss this on the article's talk page, not your talk page. It should be on the article's talk page so other interested users can see it and respond. I will copy this thread there. Meters (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been this way for more than a year-and-a-half. You need to get consensus for your contested change.

It does not matter if some people like to think that their weekends start on Friday after work. The point is it's a contiguous Saturday and Sunday. The way you are rewriting it would allow us to count weeks that include a Sunday, five weekdays, and then a Saturday. It might not be possible to get 53 such weeks in one calendar year, but that's not obvious the way you are attempting to write it. Meters (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CB: Leap year starting on Friday

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)[reply]

Plural

move to Leap years starting on friday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingidiot (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2100

If January 1, 2100 occurs on a Friday, why is 2100 missing with leap year starting on Friday, what's the difference between common year starting on Friday and leap year starting on Friday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.0.124 (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The months in the calendar displayed are different from March onwards, because of the presence or absence of February 29. Karl (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So 2100 will not be identical to 2016, 2044, 2072, and 2112 then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1103:44D:CD63:66A3:A1E1:7F51 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a content dispute in this page (ongoing for about ~1.5 months now)

I am going to list everything in bullet points.

I accidentally discussed this on Common year starting on Monday’s talk page, when I was not having a dispute on that page and I meant to do it on this talk page.
I was accused of unconstructive editing when I had and have all intentions to edit constructively.
My edit stated that a year would have 54 weeks should the week start on a Saturday
Some territories start the week on a Saturday, according to this source.
On Leap year starting on Sunday, it says the year would have 54 weeks when Monday is considered the first day of the week.
On Leap year starting on Saturday, it says the year would have 54 weeks when Sunday is considered the first day of the week.
Equipped with this knowledge, a Leap year starting on Friday would have 54 weeks if Saturday is considered the first day of the week.
I edited said page with that information. Once again, I intended for the edit to be constructive and in good-faith. I did not intend for someone to revert the edit and say it was an unconstructive edit.
I admit the edit did not have any sources.
I made a new edit, this time with a source proving that some territories start the week on a Saturday.
I made a new edit, with a new source containing a calendar that is a Leap year starting on Friday, where the week started on a Saturday, and the week numbers were listed (With January 1 equal to Week 1)
That edit STILL got reverted, and was ALSO accused of disruptive editing.
I got 2 warnings from this so far, which I do not believe I rightfully deserve either of them.
I tried telling Meters that the edit was not disruptive, but Meters just would not budge.
I proposed an edit of the article Perfect month to Meters on my talk page in fear of getting blocked, with hypothetical calendars and week starts, though I used as many sources as necessary to validate my information.

Admittedly, I slightly discussed this dispute on my user talk page and not the article. (Which I am doing now.) 108.44.231.102 (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found out that an IP address going by 109.255.55.49 had similar edits to mine. I just want you to know that I am not associated with this IP address in any way, and that I have never used this IP address before. 108.44.231.102 (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thread moved back to this page (and to correct section) after it was first added to the bottom of this page, and then deleted and incorrectly copied to Talk:Leap year starting on Friday Meters (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

You and the other IP are repeated restoring contested, improperly sourced trivia, without discussing it on the article's talk pages as you have been asked to. That's disruptive, whether you made your edits in good faith or not.

Your source is simply a calendar of one particular leap year starting on a Friday. It says nothing about leap years starting on a Friday being "the only ones [year] which contain 54 different calendar weeks (2 partial, 52 in full) in areas of the world where Saturday is considered the first day of the week."

Your comment about your proposed edit to Perfect month is irrelevant to this discussion. Meters (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, how come Leap year starting on Saturday and Leap year starting on Sunday don’t have sources for that but that 54 week information still gets allowed but this one doesn’t? 108.44.231.102 (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not justification for repeatedly restoring contested content without discussion, and "Other stuff exists" is generally a pretty weak argument. Maybe those articles should not have those claims in their leads either, and this discussion will result in their removal from those articles too. There is a difference though. There are many countries that consider the week as starting on Sunday (for the Leap year starting on Saturday case) or Monday (for the Leap year starting on Sunday case), but very few places that start the week on Friday. According to https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/days/first-day-of-the-week.html ,most of the Middle Eastern and Muslim countries that used to use Saturday as the first day of the week have switched to using Monday, listing only three exceptions. That's why I called this trivia. Meters (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DC: Leap year starting on Thursday

Memorial Day and Labor Day longest gap

I noticed when there is a Leap year starting on Thursday, there is a 39-week gap between Labor Day in the US and Memorial Day in the US

--2603:6011:E01:E465:CD63:66A3:A1E1:7F51 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 14 possible calendars, so the possible gaps between Labor Day in one year and Memorial Day the following year are shown in the 14 rows of the table below:

Gap between Labor Day and Memorial Day
Labor Day in one year	Following year is a	Dominical letter of the following year	Memorial Day the following year	Gap
September 1	common year	D	May 25	266 days (38 weeks)
September 1	leap year	DC	May 31	273 days (39 weeks)
September 2	common year	E	May 26	266 days (38 weeks)
September 2	leap year	ED	May 25	266 days (38 weeks)
September 3	common year	F	May 27	266 days (38 weeks)
September 3	leap year	FE	May 26	266 days (38 weeks)
September 4	common year	G	May 28	266 days (38 weeks)
September 4	leap year	GF	May 27	266 days (38 weeks)
September 5	common year	A	May 29	266 days (38 weeks)
September 5	leap year	AG	May 28	266 days (38 weeks)
September 6	common year	B	May 30	266 days (38 weeks)
September 6	leap year	BA	May 29	266 days (38 weeks)
September 7	common year	C	May 31	266 days (38 weeks)
September 7	leap year	CB	May 30	266 days (38 weeks)

So, your claim is indeed correct. GTrang (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ED: Leap year starting on Wednesday

Week 53

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)

Already done

FE: Leap year starting on Tuesday

GF: Leap year starting on Monday

Leap year starting on Monday - Request for interwikilink on german village pump/ref desk and answers

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))

Ich bin baff. Den Quatsch gibt's in 18 Sprachen, darunter sogar auf friesisch. Wer braucht so was? -- TZorn 21:54, 13. Mai 2012 (CEST)

(BK) Ich würde mal sagen haben wir nicht. Wir haben Schaltjahr und Kalender und trauen unseren Usern zu selbst ein bisschen zu rechnen oder zu Googeln. --Mauerquadrant (Diskussion) 21:57, 13. Mai 2012 (CEST)

In der deutschen Wikipedia entspricht dieser Artikel Wikipedia:Was Wikipedia nicht ist Punkt 7. --Rôtkæppchen68 22:17, 13. Mai 2012 (CEST)

War da mal Artikelanzahlwettbewerb? Jedenfalls kann man was draus machen: Schaltjahre sind schon mal sieben Artikel, weil es ja Schaltjahre mit jedem Anfangswochentag gibt. Noch mal sieben für die Nichtschaltjahre.

Dann nochmal Artikel für einzelne Tage, zusammen 7 multipliziert 366, von "Sonntage am 1. Januar" bis "Samstage am 31. Dezember". Dann stellen wir uns ein paar Jahrzehnte an größere Kreuzungen und schreiben "Montage, an denen um 0.01 Uhr die Ampel der Schillerstraße rot war" bis "Sonntage, an denen um 23.59 Uhr der Querverkehr grün hatte". Spezifisch für Deutschland: "Bundestagssitzungen, die nicht 3 Stunden 48 Minuten dauerten" (sondern mehr oder weniger). Sind wieder ein paar Tausend. Kirschschorle (Diskussion) 23:10, 13. Mai 2012 (CEST)

Das ist doch unnötig polemisch und unfair. In en sind das gerade mal 14 Artikel, die einen bestimmten Zweck erfüllen: jedem ohne Rechnerei ermöglichen, beliebige Wochentage in allen Jahren herauszufinden. Natürlich könnte man das alles auch in einen einzigen Artikel packen. Aber mit der Ampel in der Schillerstraße hat das wirklich nichts zu tun. --AndreasPraefcke (Diskussion) 08:27, 14. Mai 2012 (CEST)

Naja, aber wenn ich einen Kalender für das Jahr 2024 haben will, schaue ich dann einfach auf einen Kalender (beliebiger Art) für das Jahr 2024, oder überlege ich mir, dass 2024 ein Schaltjahr beginnend mit einem Montag sein muss und schaue dann nach einem Kalender für Schaltjahre beginnend mit einem Montag in der Online-Enzyklopädie meines Vertrauens? --YMS (Diskussion) 09:08, 14. Mai 2012 (CEST)

-- The answers can be sumed up as: roflmao. --92.202.58.79 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slow motion edit war over display of years

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, presented as common in many English-speaking areas}}. 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)[reply]

The slow motion edit war continues. Most edits to these pages are now from IP editors, many of them pointlessly changing |year=, and it is not clear that they are all constructive. Certes (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1810 and 1900

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)[reply]

Typo

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)[reply]

listing multiple years rather than the most recent and the next

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)[reply]

10th decade

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)[reply]

There is an inconsistency in the table. It appears that the table treats decades as running from year 0 to year 9, not year 1 to year 10 (thus putting 1770 and 2170 in the 8th decades rather than the 7th), but centuries as running from year 1 to year 100 (putting 1900 in the 19th century, and 2300 in the 23rd century). Both systems are used, but we shouldn't mix them in one table. See Decade and Century. Meters (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too USA orientated

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)[reply]

Note on calendar choice

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)[reply]

I'll give this a few more days and if no-one has objected I'll implement this change across all 14 articles. Meters (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Meters (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be updated

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)[reply]

2024 is a leap year, not a common year, and Leap year starting on Monday already contains the line "The current year, 2024, is a leap year starting on Monday" Meters (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do other talk pages redirect here?

I learned that Leap year starting on Friday’s talk page redirected here (which I didn’t think is suppposed to happen, so I fixed it), but it apparently is supposed to happen. May someone please explain that to me? 108.44.231.102 (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is explained at the top of this talk page: "To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, other Common/Leap year starting on day of the week talk pages redirect here" and at the top of Talk:Leap year starting on Friday: "This is a redirect from a talk page in any talk namespace to a corresponding centralized talk page that is more heavily watched, and thus more likely to be answered or acted on. Please start discussions there" and in more detail on your talk page: Do not remove the redirect on Talk:Leap year starting on Friday. It's there for a reason. The talk page threads on this and the other calendar pages typically apply to all of those pages, so the talk pages have been consolidated in one place. That's why there's a big message box saying "This is a redirect from a talk page in any talk namespace to a corresponding centralized talk page that is more heavily watched, and thus more likely to be answered or acted on. Please start discussions there." Don't ignore it, and don't delete it. What part of that needs more explanation? Meters (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]