Talk:Julian year (astronomy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Time
Time Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Requested move

Reason: to reverse an unsupported renaming

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support The disambiguation link in the original article is sufficient Nike 22:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Perhaps the recently (today) created Julian year (calendar) should be a separate article under that title or perhaps it should be renamed or perhaps it should be merged into Julian calendar; however the title Julian year should be given to the astronomy article and Julian year (disambiguation) would list Julian year (calendar) if that article is retained under that name. The Julian year is in actual current usage as a time unit in astronomy (fundamentally a way to measure days, not years), whereas the Julian calendar is not in any actual current usage. Until today, the astronomy article was at Julian year, and that ought to be restored. -- Curps 03:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The problems caused in the historical record because of alterations to the start of the julian year, is at least as vaild a topic as the use of the Julian year in astronomy. Philip Baird Shearer 08:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Philip Baird Shearer. "Current usage" does not automatically establish more notability. —Lifeisunfair 02:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Although I originally suggested the move and (incorrectly) tried to implement it, I am pursuaded by another that it would not be appropriate. The original article was replaced by a disambiguation page, which links to this article and another which does not exist, Julian year (calendar). The latter subject is covered an existing article, Julian calendar. Since this is already covered by a disambiguation link, a disambiguation page is unnecessary. See discussion on the original talk page. --Nike 22:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC).

I see that now. I am thinking that probably it does not need an article separate from Julian calendar. However, the first sentence is, "A Julian year is of 365.25 days long." This is factually incorrect. A year of the Julian calendar is either 365 or 366 days long, never 365.25 days. A better one would be, "A Julian year is a period beginning on January 1 and ending on the following December 31 on the Julian calendar, which is either 365 or 366 days long, depending upon whether the given year is a leap year." --Nike 03:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The whole point of the previous discussion (and the new article) is that the Julian year has not always started on 1 January. The times when countries changed is important information for anyone who is interested in history because changes in dates caused by the move over to the Gregorian calender is only one of the complications. Another is that the recorded year of an even may be different in an historical source because the source may use a different date for the start of the year. Philip Baird Shearer 08:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
BTW I think the changes made to this article in the 12 hours (since it was moved) has made it a far better article. Philip Baird Shearer 10:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
If you wish to create an article about what day was considered the first day of the year, then "Julian year" is hardly the clearest title for it. This is not the first thing that would spring to mind. First day of the year would make more sense, or New Year's Day, or something similar. In fact the topic could be expanded to non-Western calendars to flesh out a full article (see for instance [1].
Also, I suspect the start date of March 25 was not universal. It certainly seems to have applied to Britain and its colonies, but in Ancient Rome the year apparently started on either March 1 or January 1, and according to this fairly detailed page:
In his excellent book Marking Time Duncan Steel remarks (p.165) that it is often claimed that part of the Gregorian reform consisted in setting the first day of the year (New Year's Day) to January 1st, but that in fact the papal bull made no reference to the date of New Year's Day. January 1st was already New Year's Day in many European countries.
So it seems the starting day of the year was not an inherent property of the Julian calendar but varied on a country-by-country basis, which again would make First day of the year or some such a more appropriate title than Julian year (calendar). -- Curps 17:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
It is not just the start of the year which is of interest, it is also the ordinal of the year. Different times have started their calendar from different years. I am no expert on the Roman period and I look forward to more contributions on the subject. This is also something which happens in later times as well when people date their correspondence from the date of the start of a reign, but that is much easier calculate because the start of their reign is usually agreed upon and widely disseminated, although working out the saint's day can be tricky. Philip Baird Shearer 09:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The year-number is also not an inherent part of the Julian calendar, unlike the Gregorian. It was first instituted in Roman times, when the years were named for consuls, and later the reigns of emperors, so it is not just "something which happens in later times". AUC dates were used mostly by historians. Various other methods have also been used. AD dates only came into general use much later, and are also used with the Gregorian calendar. So the Julian year is independent of any method of counting years. This already discussed in the Anno Domini article, so there is no point on duplicating the information, nor would it be the most appropriate place. What would there be in Julian year (calendar) article that is not already covered by other articles? --Nike 20:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

This still appears on the request for comment list so I'll add my two cents. I doubt it's a significant inconvenience to astronomers to click on the disambiguation link. However, an amateur history buff with an interest in Napoleon's invasion of Russia would find it confusing to reach the astronomy page by accident. Encyclopedias are references for laypeople. Durova 18:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Descision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. (proposal was to move to to Julian year) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 13:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)