Talk:Old Style and New Style dates

start of year adjustment
In the section on start of year adjustment, there is the oddly specific statement "To reduce misunderstandings about the date, it was normal in parish registers" to dual-date the year. Using dual-dates (e.g. 1660/61) appears to have been common and widespread, not just confined to parish registers - it appears in Samuel Peyps' diary, for example - and it seems this section should be re-worded accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:CA70:A1F1:1346:4489:FBC4 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. That sentence was probably written by an editor with an interest in family history, unaware of their unconscious bias. I have changed to read "To reduce misunderstandings about the date, it was normal even in semi-official documents such as parish registers" to dual-date the year". Other eyes welcome, no doubt it could be improved. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing abbreviation?
In the section Other Notations the text "abbreviated st.v. and respectively" appears to be missing the second abbreviation. Since I am not sure what it should be I have not attempted to add it. Reddogbarking (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You've misunderstood: – the word "respectively" refers to the two translations that follow, "(of) old style" and "(in) old style". However, your confusion is understandable, as it's a somewhat convoluted and difficult-to-parse sentence. I'm going to attempt a reword, but somebody might want to do something more radical. GrindtXX (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Calendar v. Calender
This article is indirectly about the Julian calendar and the Gregorian calendar. I misspelled calendar in a wikilink to the first-mentioned article, and was not immediately alerted to the misspelling, because there happens to be a redirect for "Julian calender". So the misspelling must occur rather frequently, or there would be no use for the redirect. But when I consulted wiktionary I found that there is a legitimate English word "calender". According to Wiktionary it refers to a certain type of machinery. So when I went back to Wikipedia I indeed found an article Calender. So "Julian calender" is not just a spelling error that one may helpfully correct with a redirect page, but it may very well be an existing object that is now unintentionally masked by the redirect page in the unlikely case that someone wants to write it up in Wikipedia. Is there a solution for this kind of quandary? Ereunetes (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * For the cognoscenti: it is possible to print a calendar (Julian of otherwise) on calendered paper. But I think this would definitely be "Old style".Ereunetes (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyone can edit a redirect page. If there is indeed such a thing as a Julian calender, and someone writes a Wikipedia article about it, the redirect page can be turned into an article. But if the thing doesn't exist, or nobody wants to write an article about it, we can leave things as they are. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But the main reason is that "calender" is an obvious typo for a visitor to make and we should respond to the intent. We should be forgiving about what we accept but unforgiving about we write. So, Ereuntes, your mission if you choose to accept it is to write a bot to go through Category:Redirects from misspellings once a week and correct any internal links to those pages, because they should not exist. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Write a bot? I can't evidently even spell correctly :-) Ereunetes (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 3 June 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Old Style and New Style dates → Old and New Style dates – The title is much shorter. I don't think it provides ambiguity on what the article is supposed to be about. Interstellarity (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "Shortness" is not a good reason but if it were to be shortened, it would have to be "Old Style and New Style dates", since the wording in widespread and historical use always repeats the word "Style". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The difference in length is a reduction from 6 to 5 words, so an argument based on brevity isn't great. Against that, "Old Style" and "New Style" are usually capitalised (and are in the article, and across Wikipedia), so are virtually proper names, and the existing form of title accords better with that. While I agree the shorter title isn't seriously ambiguous, it does require the reader to pause and parse it in a way that the longer form doesn't. GrindtXX (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Couldn't the proposed title be misunderstood as referring to "Old dates" and "New Style dates", rather than to "Old Style dates" and "New Style dates"? Ham II (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose it is "Old Style" and "New Style", not "old and new style dates" -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for same reasons as GrindtXX. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose unnecessarily confusing, and not meaningfully shorter. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)