Talk: World Calendar

Latest revision as of 16:34, 5 June 2007

Leap Week?[]

I actually wouldn't classify this as a "leap week" calendar. Unless I'm missing something. - Nhprman 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You did not make explicit what you were referring to. There is a link to Leap week calendar in the See Also section. This replaced a link to the non-existent 53 week calendar page. Karl 09:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly clear - the World Calendar, which has two off-calendar DAYS is not really a "leap week" calendar because it has no leap week, which is usually 7-days in length. Am I wrong? - Nhprman 18:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That is only half the story. You haven't referred to the text that allegedly classifies the World Calendar as a leap week calendar. Karl 12:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What text are you talking about? What I was referring to was the new link to the category, which as plainly incorrect, since this is not a leap week calendar. It's been deleted. I see nothing in the text of the article that indicates (falsely) this is a leap week calendar, if that's what you meant. - Nhprman 23:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The text you claim exists and asserts that the World Calendar is a leap week calendar. Your answer makes clear that this is just the link. Whether such a link really would assert anything about world calendar is questionable. Karl 15:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe we're going round and round on this! Categories simply cannot be placed willy-nilly. If someone put a "category:13-month calendar" link on the World Calendar article, it would be just as inaccurate, and would be removed. End of discussion (I hope! This is the BS that goes on at Wikipedia. Let's not do this here, okay?) For the record, I never asserted there was "text" included in the article that was incorrect. Nhprman 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just checked the entire history of this article and see it was never in the category of leap week calendars. Your implied assertion that it was so is incorrect and that's why the discussion has not ended. I think you have confused the See Also section with categories. Karl 08:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. It was under "see also" - which makes no sense, either, since this is in no way a leap week calendar. Why are we belaboring this anyway? Let's all just try to be more accurate and precise in our postings here. - Nhprman 14:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of the link to Leap week calendar. Why we are belabouring the point because there is not only did you provide insufficient information at the outset, but also there is an important issue here that you seem unwilling to discuss. Does the presence of a web page in a See Also section about a category imply that this page belongs to that category?. Finally, I've removed the link to 53-week calendar (which lead to all of this in the first place) from the World Calendar page on wikipedia. The link redirects to Leap week calendar. Karl 11:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If we care about accuracy, no. You can put "Star Trek calendars" in the See also section for the World Calendar if you wish, it will still be wrong, just like Leap Week and 53 Week calendars are wrong for this article. Point? Does the most number of words typed about this win the contest? - Nhprman 22:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

But would adding International Fixed Calendar be wrong? I don't think so. The point is that it not a simple issue as you'd like to make out. Karl 09:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but adding misleading links to any article is clearly not good practice. If someone were to be led to believe that this was somehow related to the 13-month calendar by the inclusion of a totally unrelated calendar to the "see also" category (and it isn't at all related) than it would not add anything to the article. What, exactly does the International Fixed Calendar (13 months in length) have to do with the World Calendar - a 12-month calendar with two "null" days - other than that they are both proposals to change the Gregorian? - Nhprman 16:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but the matter of whether such an addition is misleading is not so simple. You cannot assume that other people think like you, but must be explicit. We'd have avoided such a long discussion if at the outset you said something like I want to remove the link to Leap week calendar in the see also section, because it may mislead one into thinking that the World Calendar is a leap week calendar.Karl 08:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, its good practice to follow an entry in a See Also section with a short explanation of why it is present to prevent it from misleading the reader. See the See Also sections of the Markelsian calendar and the World Calendar in wikipedia.Karl 08:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. Thanks. - Nhprman 16:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 : I agree, but the matter of whether such an addition is misleading is not so simple. You cannot assume that other people think like you, but must be explicit. We'd have avoided such a long discussion if at the outset you said something like ''I want to remove the link to [[Leap week calendar]] in the see also section, because it may mislead one into thinking that the '''World Calendar''' is a leap week calendar''.[[User:Karl P|Karl]] 08:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 :Perhaps, its good practice to follow an entry in a '''See Also''' section with a short explanation of why it is present to prevent it from misleading the reader. See the '''See Also''' sections of the [[Markelsian calendar]] and the '''World Calendar''' in wikipedia.[[User:Karl P|Karl]] 08:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
+::I like your suggestion. Thanks. - [[User:Nhprman|Nhprman]] 16:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)