Talk:Undecimber

Java Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Java, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Java on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaWikipedia:WikiProject JavaTemplate:WikiProject JavaJava articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Is the Gregorian calendar really used in most of the world? I know that indians and chinese, among others, use their own calendars at least much of the time.

-Magnus

For non-religious purposes, yes... (By the way, there are many calendars in India, with numerous local variations.)AnonMoos 11:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, in fact only 1 third of the world population uses 1 january as new year.

When writing the Undecimber stuff, I relied on the Gregorian calendar page--quote 1st sentence: "The Gregorian calendar is the most widely used calendar in the world." But you have a point, so I softened the sentence a bit ("almost everywhere in the world" -> "in most parts of the world"). --193.99.145.162 17:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the 365.25 day year were divided into 28-day months, there would be thirteen months, with 1.25 days left over. The days of the week and the days of the month would coincide for an entire year. The leftover day per year and extra day every four years could be a global holiday. (You should hear me regarding the benefits of switching to octal!) --205.201.141.146 18:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the International Fixed Calendar proposal, which has received varying degrees of support since being proposed by Auguste Comte in 1849. However, it has very little reelvance to this article... AnonMoos 13:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Seuss[edit]

Need I mention the first of Octember? Shouldn't it be mentioned on the page? --Homfrog^{Tell me a story!} 19:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wording[edit]

Is it acceptable to edit a sentence not because it's factually incorrect but because of an issue with wording? This line in the article really stuck out:

"The "i" in Undecimber is therefore correct, even though December is spelled with an "e"."

It's not wrong, but the way it's written it reads like it is following claims that "Undecimber" is spelled incorrectly. There is no mention of common misconceptions on the spelling so this sentence really reads like it's coming from no where, or like someone edited out information set before this in the paragraph. The problem is the use of "therefore" which is a conjunction meant to link phrases through cause and effect or to show a relationship between the thoughts. Only the thought prior to this sentence doesn't address common spelling errors; it talks about the root of both words. I'm not sure if one should edit for wording since it's not a matter of factual error and might come off as rude. Gildedmuse (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Gildedmuse[reply]

Sure, feel free to rephrase it if you think the wording can be improved. 28bytes (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's acceptable; thousands of my edits are for similar concerns. —Tamfang (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence following that, "The word Undecember (abbreviated as Vnde) is recorded from a Roman inscription", it's unclear whether it's the inscription that contains this misspelling. Should there be a "(sic)"? Jkshapiro (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New article creation: Duodecember[edit]

I think Duodecember should be an article seperate from Undecimber, instead of redirecting to the Undecimber page.

27.131.39.140 (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]