Talk:National calendars of the Roman Rite

Title of the split
First of all, splitting the article of the GRC is a good idea, although, in my humble opinion, it would have been better to make a single article for every regional calendar. Which brings me to my point: "National variants of the…" is a rather unlucky expression, as, up to my knowledge, they are called "regional (liturgical) calendar".--Medusahead (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t think that splitting National calendars of the Roman Rite further would be a good idea. My reasons:
 * * each article could have a different format;
 * * all calendar propers in this articular are national calendars (which is a subgroup from particular calendars).
 * As for regional (liturgical) calendars: no, you are not right. You should read the Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the General Roman Calendar (esp Chapter II, Title I, 52.). Actually, there different type of the Roman Calendar according to UNLY:
 * * General Roman Calendar (or simply General Calendar);
 * * particular calendars (any and all of the calendars below);
 * * diocesan calendars;
 * * religious calendars;
 * * calendars for individual churches.
 * However, according to usage or (if you wish) the location where the particular particular calendar is used, we use additional calendar types:
 * * national calendars (celebrated by a single nation or country);
 * * regional calendars (celebrated by a particular region or even a group of countries or episcopal conferences);
 * * ‘continental’ calendars (this one is less often used term, as no one actually uses such a calendar, but every national calendar inherits celebrations first from the GRC, then from the continental calendar).
 * Therefore I think that the current article name is specific enough, because it lists national calendars and it does that for the Roman rite only. 7otto (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On a second thought, we might want to split the article by continents, however, I still think that splitting the articule even further gains no good. 7otto (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Therefore I think that the current article name is specific enough, because it lists national calendars and it does that for the Roman rite only. 7otto (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On a second thought, we might want to split the article by continents, however, I still think that splitting the articule even further gains no good. 7otto (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On a second thought, we might want to split the article by continents, however, I still think that splitting the articule even further gains no good. 7otto (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On a second thought, we might want to split the article by continents, however, I still think that splitting the articule even further gains no good. 7otto (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Change the format to table and add a Change type column
(Related to Talk:General_Roman_Calendar)

I think it would be much more readable if we change the format of the calendar propers to tables. Then we could sort the tables according to different columns.

Finally, I think a column with the type of change (addition, transfer to a different date, rank raise/lowering, addition of a title) would be nice to have.

For example, this could be a table for National calendars of the Roman Rite:

7otto (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I've actually been working on this same idea! Our systems are very similar. Mine currently isn't sortable, however (due to colspan cells); do you think there's value to sortability for this type of data? Jdcompguy (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, sortability is not a must-have thing, but might be nice to have. Imagine a user might want to sort the celebration by ranks or celebration name or change type. It might be useful, but it is not a necessary feature. :)
 * I don’t mind removing sortability, but what gains do we have using colspans here? 7otto (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In my table draft I'm using rowspans (not colspans; my mistake) on the months, like this:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Month !! Day
 * rowspan="3" | January || 27
 * 28
 * 31
 * rowspan="2" | February || 2
 * 3
 * }
 * I think it looks nice, but I'm just thinking out loud on the question of whether sortability is a greater advantage than the aesthetics of rowspan months. Jdcompguy (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * rowspan="2" | February || 2
 * 3
 * }
 * I think it looks nice, but I'm just thinking out loud on the question of whether sortability is a greater advantage than the aesthetics of rowspan months. Jdcompguy (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it looks nice, but I'm just thinking out loud on the question of whether sortability is a greater advantage than the aesthetics of rowspan months. Jdcompguy (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, while it looks nice, how do you output dates of movable celebrations like Thursday after Pentecost? It is neither month nor date. Would you rowspan the cells?
 * That said, I like it from DRY point of view. 7otto (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jdcompguy, besides the issue of movable celebration dates, we need to add a Notes (or Remarks) column, as some celebrations currently have some notes added, esp when the celebration coicides which other celebration(s).
 * I’d like to update the celebration list format to use tables in the articles (gradually, not all at once), but I don’t want to decide the format on my own.
 * Other, related issues I’d like to see fixed (ideally alongside changing the format to table) are:
 * - remove canonisation level from links;
 * - capitalise first letters of titles in celebration names. 7otto (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * - capitalise first letters of titles in celebration names. 7otto (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)