Talk:Decimal calendar

[Untitled]

Please don't put "atlantium" stuff in this article; it's not relevant at all. Ashibaka ✎ 20:27, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Inclusion of a widely-documented decimal calendar proposal is perfectly relevant to this article. Gene_Poole

• If it were significant, it would be added by someone who isn't the Emperor of Atlantium. - Tweak

I repeat, inclusion of a widely-documented decimal calendar proposal is perfectly relevant to this article. Suggest you do some actual research in the real world before sharing irrelevant subjective personal opinions with us. Gene_Poole

Some handy Google tests:

• 703 hits for "annus novus"—but that's just Latin for New Year, so. . .
• 184 hits on "annus novus" +atlantium, but that text was in this article for a while, and some sites doubtless snarfed it up during that time, so . . .
• . . . we append -wikipedia and -encyclopedia to the search string, which gives us 170 results.
• We look through these hits, and we notice that a lot of them describe it in the exact same words—words that come straight from the Open Directory. We eliminate the phrase "non-sectarian, culturally neutral", which is the wording from the DMOZ list, and we get—
• 49 results. But wait! Some of them don't hyphenate "non-sectarian", so removing those gives us . . .
• 17 results, two of which are from Atlantium's own website.

Make of these what you will. —No-One Jones 21:35, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is of great importance to show an example of modern usage of a decimal calender. The best example I can find is that of the Empire of Atlantium, and so it should be mentioned in the article. It is quite interesting too Dmn 11:02, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am removing the page protection on this article since no meaningful discussion has occurred for several days. In the interest of neutrality, I ask that HM the Emperor of Atlantium consider refraining from editing this article. --"DICK" CHENEY 14:37, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm thinking about adding "see Atlantium", merely because that article links here. I'm a big fan of bi-directional linking. OK ? -- DavidCary 03:53, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Atlantium

"No decimal calendar proposal to date has gained a level of public acceptance sufficient to ensure its longterm success, and some have argued that the cost of any proposed conversion would far outweigh the savings that it might deliver"

If this isn't weaselly language, I don't know what is! QuartierLatin1968 05:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does this subject exist?

It occurs to me that there are no decimal calendars here. The Romulus calendar simply didn't name the two or three winter months. The Egyptian and French calendars had 10-day weeks, but 12 months of 30 days. No other calendars are described here. Looking at the history, the article seems to have been created to promote Atlantium, which is no longer mentioned. So it seems that three unrelated calendars are lumped together due to some tenuous connection with the number 10. In my opinion, it therefore fails to meet the criterion of notability and should probably be deleted. --Nike (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"at the very least, this is a reasonable dab page for people searching for 'decimal calendar'" Except that it's not a dab page at all. By that logic, there would be a billion pages like this. How do we even know that people are searching for this? If they just need a definition, why not a page on Wictionary, instead? Although, that begs the question I asked to begin with, does it really exist? The rules say that subjects must be notable. --Nike (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Decimal calendar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100719004746/http://math.camden.rutgers.edu/extension01.pdf to http://math.camden.rutgers.edu/extension01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Practical equivalent, not (only) average?

Might it be beneficial to provide some examples of how ten months might be achieved in practice, rather than (or in addition to) the average length? It might be four or five months of thirty-six days and the rest thirty-seven, or if more intent on preserving the decimal aspect, nine months of forty days to at least preserve divisibility with ten and then five or six days in the tenth month. If merely preserving divisibility with factors of ten, then five or six months of thirty-five days and the rest of forty days, or four or five months of thirty-six days and the rest of thirty-eight days, might be used. Paculino (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)