Talk:Hanke–Henry Permanent Calendar

A suggestion that there are certain features of the Gregorian calendar which do in any event perhaps permit easy calculation of any year dates
It seems that what is mentioned in the subject line above is not mentioned here or indeed ever dealt with anywhere on the Internet up to the present time and so far as I can make out (and I do not unfortunately happen to be an expert) they are not even dealt with in current published material with any particular clarity, at least in English. The fact surely remains (and I am of course open to contradiction on this Talk Page) that any period of four hundred years in the Gregorian calendar as from the 17th century )commencing in January 1600 AD) is so far as I can make out identical (thus the present century, the 21st century, is identical with the 17th century and likewise the following centuries must surely likewise therefore keep in the same order within the continuously repeating period of four hundred years). It being further the case that in each given century of any period of four hundred years the particular calendar form of a period of twentyeight years as from the year divisable by one hundred repeats itself (i.e. with three identical twenty-eight year periods and a further identical section of the first sixteen years of the twenty-eight year period in question, totalling the one hundred years of the century that is in question). It seems quite clear that this, whether mentioned or not at that time, is the character which must surely have been worked out by the rather clever people who created the Gregorian calendar towards the end of the 16th century and likewise it seems to myself that it should surely be taken into account by the people who believe for whatever reason that the Gregorian calendar should be modified or changed altogether, as is clearly with some persons currently the case, although without many details given as to how this matter is to be given some sort of legal status at an international level (that which must surely in itself be a problem ...). There are surely all sorts of other factors which I do not choose here to mention, but including in particular the significance in point of Christianity of what is in any event in many forms of society, Christian or not, a very long-running historical feature (namely the provision of seven days in one week without any exceptions, as has been mentioned elsewhere). Now it is the case that the particular character of the Gregorian calendar which I have mentioned (character of four hundred years and twenty-eight year period) happens to be the one in which I am most interested myself for a number of purely personal reasons it being the case that I have in mind the creation of an easy-to-use worldwide permanent calendar using the present Gregorian calendar on the basis mentioned and therefore it is of course the case that (admittedly personally) I would like to have all the relevant matters, including this one, which I believe are in favour of the Gregorian calendar in its present form carefully considered if that is ever going to be possible (q.v. also of course the remarkable article as cited on this article page, calendar reform).

Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.144.15 (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Peter, would you consider dividing your post into paragraphs? Running it all together into one paragraph discourages people from attempting to discern what is being said.

Advantage??!!
"Holidays such as Christmas and New Year's Day as well as birthdays always occur on the same day of the week every year.". Why is this under "advantages"? What if some holiday falls in a weekend forever due to this so you never get a day off for it? --- Answer:

Not a problem. Move holidays to weekdays. An advantage of a fixed calendar is that holidays, once put on weekdays, are automatically there every year. ---

What if a kid would like to celebrate their birthday on a schoolday so all their friends are there, but has it in a weekend every single year?

--- Answer:

Then celebrate his/her birthday on the Friday or Monday adjacent to that weekend. Designate your birthday celebration at whatever date, a perpetual weekday or a perpetual weekend, that you prefer. ---

188.60.248.15 (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Also what if the kid would like a birthday on the weekend so they don't have to go to school? Jimp 10:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Monday start
Hanke & Henry seem to have changed their proposal to adopt Monday as the first day of the week (hence quarter and year) in early 2016, but not all their resources already reflect that. The original site says “Our new proposed starting date is 2018 January 1, Monday. Our previous efforts (week started on Sunday) are below.” It references a new site on the top, which has this to say in its Q&A section: 11.) Why 2018 January 1?

Because in both the current Gregorian Calendar, and in the new HH calendar, that day is a Monday (the start of a 7-day cycle, which we call a "week.") — Christoph Päper 07:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hanke–Henry Permanent 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/20120222052214/http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/calendar.html to http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/calendar.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070709142810/https://hopkinsnet.jhu.edu/servlet/page?_pageid=1794&_dad=portal30p&_schema=PORTAL30P to https://hopkinsnet.jhu.edu/servlet/page?_pageid=1794&_dad=portal30p&_schema=PORTAL30P

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect statement removed again. Someone had "reverted" it back in. HH quarter's 2nd month doesn't have extra week.
Here's the incorrect statement that I've removed twice (removed it again after someone reverted it back in):

"The last month in each quarter has one day more than the other two (30:30:31), but the second month has one week more than the other two (4:5:4)."

No, it doesn't.

The 2nd month of Hanke-Henry's quarters has 30 days. That doesn't give it "one more week than the other two" months of the quarter.

How could a 30-day month have "one more week" than a 31-day month?

Presumably the reversion was done by the same person who initially included that incorrect statement.

I ask that person to reconsider what he's saying.

But if it's necessary to pursue Wikipedia's official remedies for incorrect, repeatedly re-posted "original research" statements, then so be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.18.145 (talk • contribs)


 * The statement, which I had added and readded, is correct.
 * With 30:30:31 and a Monday start of the week and year, the first month of each quarter ends on a Tuesday, the second on a Thursday. Going by the majority of days, like ISO 8601 does, the 29th and 30th day of the first month (Monday and Tuesday) thus belong to the first week of the second month, likewise the 1st, 2nd and 3rd day of the third month (Friday through Sunday) are part of the last week of the second month. The middle month therefore has five weeks, while the other months have four weeks (4:5:4). Incidentally, this is also true for 31:30:30 and 30:31:30, but is most natural for 30:31:30 of course, and thus a minor point in favor of such reform proposals (e.g Symmetry454). However minor, it is still a valid point in comparing competing calendar designs.
 * If you think the phrasing is not clear enough, please provide a suggestion for an improved text. — Christoph Päper 11:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Unlike what you added, the wording above is clear, but I don't see the relevance of it. Karl (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * All leap week calendars share a lot of advantages and disadvantages (over the Gregorian calendar or over any leap day calendar). This is a point where they diverge. 30:30:31 and 31:30:30 have other advantages that 30:31:30 does not have, e.g. 31:30:30 has more month lengths unchanged from the Gregorian (6) than the other two while 30:30:31 has the most regular monthly distribution of work days with a Saturday/Sunday weekend (22:22:21). — Christoph Päper 12:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The pertinent point is "Would whole weeks be allocated to months?" If no, then the point is irrelevant. If yes, is it of concern that in weeks a different month of the quarter is longest than in days? An advantage of 30:30:31 is that it minimizes the difference between the day at given date occurs in the HHP calendar and the Gregorian Calendar: Maximum 5 days, normally 4 days or less. This advantage did not apply before the new year day was moved from Sunday to Monday. Karl (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I then thought of a different way of seeing it. If weeks are allocated to months by the majority of days, how many days are in the minorities? 30:31:30 minimizes the number of days in the minorities to 4 per quarter, whereas 31:30:30 and 30:30:31 have 5 days per quarter in the minorities. Karl (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Fiscal quarters
What am I missing? From the article: "Quarters all have the same number of days simplifying financial calculations. This calendar would also have prevented Apple’s Q4 2012 reporting fiasco, where due to the odd number of weeks in a year and to ensure a consistent reporting period, Apple reported quarterly results after the usual thirteen weeks instead of the fourteen the year before due to there being a leap week in the quarter, causing many investors who did not notice the adjustment to think that Apple had been less profitable than forecast."

What happens during leap week? It's not in a quarter, so financial information is not reported? Apple shuts down for a week? Annual earnings are not the sum of quarterly earnings? Leap week is a separate every-once-in-a-while reporting period? Won't comparing annual earnings have the same problem in the year after a year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.89.174.155 (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)