Calendar Wiki
Advertisement

January 26th, 2019  19:15 UTC

Crisov has again changed my entry to the 13X28 comparision page, without any explanation, other than referring to something called "hover" (...but there's no indication of a comment-space here called "hover").

I'm willing to discuss the matter. I've been trying to discuss the matter. But Crisov persists in his unexplained unsupported modifications to someone else's entry at the 13X28 comparison-page.

Repeatedly modifying someone else's post, without giving any explanation or justification is vandalism. I won't leave that vandalism un-corrected.

As I explained in my edit-summary, the purpose of that page is comparison of the 13X28 proposals. Those proposals differ only in one significant regard: Their year-start rules (which usually, but not always, explicitly refer to a leap-year rule).

Therefore, it's meaningless and ridiculous to speak of comparing those proposals without  actually describing how their year-start rules differ.

Maybe Crisov wants the neatness of using only one line for the "descriptions". I suggest that serving the page's comparison purpose is more important than the neatness of only using one line per entry.

Not just my entry in that column, but those of the other arithmetical rules as well, need more than one (very short) line, in order to provide any information or comparison at all.

I'm going to, additionally, post this message at the talk-page, partly in an effort to appeal the matter to this wiki's administrator, and partly to give Crisove that additional opportunity to justify his actions. I'm the one who's making the effort to discuss the matter. After I post this message here and at the talk page, I'll wait a day or so, and will then, again, will undo Crisov's vandalism.

If there's a writing-space by which I can communicate directly with an administrator, I'll try that too.

5 Sa  (South-Solstice WeekDate)

January 26th  (Roman-Gregorian)

Michael Ossipoff (talk) 19:12, January 26, 2019 (UTC)Michael Ossipoff

hover means that the longer information, stored in an HTML title attribute, was shown as a tooltip if a mouse pointer hovered over the table cell for a fraction of a second.
This is a table for quick comparison, it does not need all the minute details that are found in the articles about the calendar designs. It is more important that it be concise and used the same labels for different designs. Your leap rule is indeed arithmetic, not astronomic (which is used for calendars that rely on observation of the sky), but cannot be stated neatly. I'm open to suggestions, but a twenty-word description is definitely too long.
Besides, who do you think compiled this table and put it up here in the first place? I'm just trying to keep it valuable. That's also why I copyedit many articles around here without asking "permission" first. Crissov (talk) 17:11, January 27, 2019 (UTC)
____________________________________________________________________________

[quote]

This is a table for quick comparison, it does not need all the minute details that are found in the articles about the calendar designs.

[/quote]

.

Nor do my entries contain all that information.

.

“Quick comparison”?  How about “no comparison”?  As I previously explained:

.

First, it goes without saying that the various 13X28 proposals don’t differ in year-division structure.

.

They significantly differ only in year-start system (usually, but not always expressed explicitly in terms of a rule for leapyears).

.

Year-start system consists of:

.

1. The intended seasonal time of year for year-start (expressible by a solar-ecliptic longitude, such as South-Solstice, or, less precisely, by a Gregorian date such as January 1st.)

.

2. A rule by which the year-start is kept close to the abovementioned intended seasonal time of year.

.

Well, 7 of the proposals in the list share the “dec solstice” intended seasonal time. So that doesn’t distinguish them from eachother.

.

(Likewise “Jan 1” and “March Equinox”, too, are each shared by several of the listed proposals.)

.

They significantly differ from eachother only in regards to the rule by which their year-start is kept close to their intended seasonal time of year-start.

.

That’s why, for the purpose of that comparison list, I’ve named my proposal “Nearest-Monday 13X28”.

.

In fact, of course the combination of year-start rule and year-division structure are the natural clear specification of a calendar.   …further suggesting “Nearest-Monday 13X28” as a good name for my proposal in that comparison list.

.

As for the “Leapyear Rule” column, “Nearest-Monday” is the concise and brief name for the year-start rule used by my proposal.

.

Now, I’ve explained the justification for my entries in the “Name” column and the “Leapyear Rule” column. But, if the objection is that it’s intolerable for my proposal to use 3 lines, when none of the other proposals uses more than 2 lines, I have two answers to that:

.

1. I admit that 2 lines isn’t enough to say anything that meaningfully distinguishes their leapyear-rules, and that all of the proposals (not just mine) with arithmetical leapyear-rules need more space in order say anything comprehensible or meaningful about how they differ.

.

2. But if 2 lines is desired to be the absolute limit in the table (making meaningful comparison impossible), then I propose these entries for my proposal:

------------------------

Name: Ossipoff 13X28  

.

Leapyear-Rule: Nearest-Monday

------------------------

That name sacrifices description for 2-line brevity.

.

That leap-year rule leaves out the word “arithmetical”, which I’d included because your use of “Astronomical” suggested that I should express the Astronomical vs Arithmetical distinction.

.

But, if  you consider 2-line brevity to be absolutely essential, then my entries can conform to the previous 2-line maximum, by the proposed shortened entries specified directly above.

.

If “Ossipoff 13X28” is still too long, then “Ossipoff “ could be replaced with “Osipov”, the correct Latin transcription of my name’s Cyrillic spelling.

.

(Shortening the entry to “Ossipoff “ would be unacceptable, because it would incorrectly imply that my 13X28 proposal is my only proposal.   …when actually South-Solstice WeekDate is my main and favorite proposal.)

.

Do you want those brief entries to replace the ones that I’ve put up?

.

Or are the current entries alright?

.

[quote]

It is more important that it be concise and used the same labels for different designs.

[/quote]

Yes, but hopefully not the same to the extent of not sufficiently distinguishing the designs from eachother.

.

There are many arithmetical rules in the leapyear-rule column, and the others have some sort of name as their entry, as mine now does. (As I said, I’ll remove the word “arithmetical” if necessary.)

[quote]

Your leap rule is indeed arithmetic, not astronomic (which is used for calendars that rely on observation of the sky), but cannot be stated neatly.

[/quote]

Yes, my initial description of it took up too much space. But it can be _named_ briefly, as “Nearest-Monday”.

.

[quote]

I'm open to suggestions, but a twenty-word description is definitely too long.

[/quote]

Well, my entries weren’t _that_ long, but I’ve shortened them to 3 short-lines, and I now propose (above)  a _further_ shortening of them to 2 lines, and will so shorten them if necessary.

.

6 M (South-Solstice WeekDate)

5 M (ISO WeekDate (but not in ISO format) )

Dua, Week 2, Monday  (Osipov 13X28)

January 28th  (Roman-Gregorian)

.

Michael Ossipoff

Advertisement