Talk:Greyhawk Calendar

Basis?
AnonMoos, can you explain your assertion that this calendar "is derived from and based on" the Positivist calendar and the International Fixed Calendar? Have you derived this from a source which explains its origin, or is this your own original research? 208.54.40.135 (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that they're exactly the same (except for the yearly "blank day" and quadrennial leap day). Even if one isn't directly derived from the other (which is theoretically possible, though rather unlikely), their structural identicalness with the subject-matter of this article makes them relevant see-also links... AnonMoos (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your supposition that they're (nearly) "exactly the same" sounds awfully like original research. Did Gygax or anyone else ever point out the similarity, or that they had developed the calendar from these real-world calendars? 208.54.40.243 (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're making a big to-do over a simple see-also link to undoubtedly very closely related topics. The Positivist Calendar was developed and publicized almost a century and a half before Dungeons and Dragons, and both have the same structure (thirteen months of 28 days each, divided into four seven-day weeks).  It seems quite likely that one is derived from the other, and even if that's not the case, they still have the same number of months per year, the same number of days per month, and the same seven-day weeks -- which should be more than enough for a see-also link... AnonMoos (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not making a big deal over anything, just stating my opinion. If you want to prove me wrong, then please provide a source for your suppositions that Gygax and/or other designers based this calendar on a real-life calendar; otherwise, feel free to ignore my opinion. 208.54.40.135 (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know with absolute certainty that it was based on previous calendar-reform efforts, and I haven't really claimed to know that (sorry if you were inflamed by one of my edit summaries, but edit summaries are intended to be quite short, and do not lend themselves to subtlety and nuance). However, it seems quite probable that this was the case -- and even if (theoretically) it's not the case, the fact that the calendars have an identical basic 13×4×7 structure would seem to be more than enough reason in itself to add a simple "see also" link... AnonMoos (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Common Year (Greyhawk)
These two articles seem to be covering the same ground, Greyhawk Calendar actually going into greater detail about what a Common Year is. McGeddon (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)