Talk:Lunisolar calendar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] WikiProject Time assessment rating comment
With some more citations it could be a B.
Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 22:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
How dow you know when is the year has 12 months or 13 months
- That depends on the actual intercalation rules of the respective calendar. As a rule of thumb: the 13th month is inserted when the date of the the beginning of spring (vernal equinox) is more then 30 days earlier then its last possible date. andy
[edit] Merging "Calendrical implications" from Month
I updated this article (which looked rather dilapidated) by merging information that didn't fit nicely in Month. However I didn't know what to do with the following section, so I've put it here:
A representative sequence of common and leap years is ccLccLcLccLccLccLcL, which is the classic nineteen-year Metonic cycle. The Hebrew and Buddhist calendars restrict the leap month to a single month of the year, so the number of common months between leap months is usually 36 months but occasionally only 24 months elapse. The Chinese and Hindu lunisolar calendars allow the leap month to occur after or before (respectively) any month but use the true motion of the sun, so their leap months do not usually occur within a couple of months of perihelion, when the apparent speed of the sun along the ecliptic is fastest (now about 3 January). This increases the usual number of common months between leap months to roughly 34 months when a doublet of common years occurs while reducing the number to about 29 months when only a common singleton occurs.
This section is pretty technical, and I feel it doesn't "fit". I suggest including it in the articles of the mentioned calendars, or adding an external link to a site by a calendar expert. squell 00:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The list of fractions are continued fractions. I've added 136/11; I've also added how these fractions relate to "real world" cycles; I have removed 4131/334; at that accuracy, this figure starts getting sensitive to the exact choice of tropical year (Besselian? vernal equinox? etc). squell 00:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see a good reason for excluding the deleted section, although I am partial to it because I wrote it. Being technical should not exclude anything from any Wikipedia article. It does 'fit' because it discusses leap months in lunisolar calendars. — Joe Kress 06:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
But so does the merged section from Month. Simply including both does the reader a disservice because it mentions the same topic twice, with possible contradictions. Perhaps I should have said "doesn't fit in the article as it is now." Regarding the technicality; being technical is not a criteria for exclusion from Wikipedia, but the quoted paragraph very quickly dives into complex territory (true motion of the sun) and adds article-jargon (compare doublet, singleton).
I get the impression your paragraph is more about the average interval between leap months (unrelated to a calendar being arithmetic or not) while the section I added (expanding on Tom Peters' work) is only about their overall frequency (with a inclination towards arithmetic calendars). I will probably attempt to merge the two sections later, keeping this in mind. squell 17:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] External Link section
I'm not sure why the external links section was deemed to have too many to the same site since the site is not straight-forward to navigate, but I have reverted this simple deletion and believe the section is now in compliance with Wikipedia:External_links#External_links_section Kind regards, --Greatwalk 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is a shame you have still not read the appropriate guidelines. Please see Important points to remember, point 3: "Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website". --Pak21 08:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Further Examples section
Is there anything at all notable about the content in the Further Examples section? It looks like self-aggrandizement to me. QVanillaQ 19:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the section, since the external links point to the same information anyway. QVanillaQ 15:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Solilunar vs. lunisolar
Solilunar is the correct term for calendars which are both lunar and solar but more successful in tracking the lunar cycle than the solar. Lunisolar means calendars which are both lunar and solar but more successful in tracking the solar cycle than the lunar. Lunisolar calendars actually aren't possible at all if it's better on tracking the solar cycle than the lunar, and most of the so-called 'lunisolar' calendars are actually solilunar. There's no such thing as lunisolar! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.110.42 (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've reverted your change for several reasons. It was within what appears to be a direct quote which must written as it appears without any changes. Although I understand your argument, solilunar is non-standard. Lunisolar is standard in all sources. Furthermore, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary does not support your distinction. It says that both lunisolar and soli-lunar or solunar (or sol-lunar) mean of or pertaining to both the sun and moon (although probably a coincidence, "sun" is listed before "moon" in all three definitions). — Joe Kress (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You're right, there's no such thing as solilunar. That was what Peter Meyer said.
