Talk:Symmetry454

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 September 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 February 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

It's my favourite[edit]

Best calend3r ev3r — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:C7F4:773C:A982:1A87 (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Easter on a fixed date[edit]

"The Symmetry454 Calendar meets all of the WCC criteria." according to the article. What's missing is how these criteria are met. Specifically, what is the date of Easter in this calendar & how is this choice justified? Okay I've fixed it. Jimp 7Sep05

Easter on a Fixed Date[edit]

You state:

"The World Council of Churches (WCC) Easter web page indicates that the WCC is interested in:

-a perpetual calendar that preserves the traditional 7-day sabbatical cycle

-the calendar must not employ any "null" days that are outside of the normal 7-day week

-the calendar may have a fixed date for Easter, but it must be permanently on a true Sunday and the choice of date must be justifiable

-ideally the calendar should permanently maintain alignment with the solar cycle ..."

Please share the specific non-Wikipedia web page address(es) that you are using to document these statements.

Thank you, TWCAdirector 22:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail: TWCA@TheWorldCalendar.org

Easter on a Fixed Date[edit]

For lack of citation, removed:

"The World Council of Churches (WCC) Easter web page indicates that the WCC is interested in: [citation needed]

-a perpetual calendar that preserves the traditional 7-day sabbatical cycle [citation needed]

-the calendar must not employ any "null" days that are outside of the normal 7-day week [citation needed]

-the calendar may have a fixed date for Easter, but it must be permanently on a true Sunday and the choice of date must be justifiable [citation needed]

-ideally the calendar should permanently maintain alignment with the solar cycle [citation needed]

-The Symmetry454 Calendar meets all of the WCC criteria. [citation needed]"

The Journal of Calendar Reform between 1934 and 1954 documents endorsement of The World Calendar by numerous religious organizations. Restrictions on that support, as they have appeared (above) on the Symmetry454 page, therefore need non-Wikipedia sources to verify accuracy and NPOV. --TWCAdirector 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion?[edit]

Somebody marked this page for deletion, claiming that it was original research, unverified, and unsourced.

It clearly is not original research, this calendar has been extensively validated and the cited sources document that work. This page is just a very brief summary of the full documentation and that is freely available at the cited web sites. Most of the information presented here has been entered by other users, I only made necessary correction.

I can only assume that the person who marked this page for deletion did so belligerently, as an act of vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kalendis (talk • contribs) 17:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

None of the cited sources are independent. One is the personal webpage of the calendar creator. Please specify which of the sources are verifiable, per Wikipedia standards. This is a good faith nomination, as are the others on similar calendars which are in the AfD process right now. —C.Fred (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research[edit]

I've added the {{OriginalResearch}} template to the article over the following concern: there are no verifiable sources in the article. There is the initial proposal for the article, but self-publication is not verifiable, and the nature of the calendar proposal leaves it close to things made up in school one day. The calculator program mentioned in the external links is just a program doing calculations based on the calendar.

Has this calendar gotten any coverage? Science? Discovery.com? I'd even take an article in whatever the successor to Omni is as sufficient independent publicity of the proposal. —C.Fred (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

The Symmetry454 Calendar has been more extensively verified astronomically than any other calendar in history! Did you even look at the external links for the documentation at the www.sym454.org web site? "Publicity" does nothing to "verify" a calendar reform, all it does it broaden awareness of it. There have been several newspaper articles, but the reporters have been more interested in telling a "story" rather than getting the facts right. This entry in Wiki was not self-started, but was started by others, and gratifyingly many people have contributed to editing it, with only occasional corrections necessary. Since the calendar arithmetic is in the public domain, it is fully verifiable by anybody who chooses to do so. It represents more than 2 years of work for the development, computer implementation, extensive astronomical verifications, and documentation. The Kalendis calendar calculator performs much more than you give credit for, supporting interconversions of a variety of calendars, astronomical information, and allowing the user to experiment with a broad array of alternative settings within the Symmetry454 calendar framework. There is at least one other web site discussing the Sym454 calendar by a linguist in India at <http://www.samvit.org/calendar/sym/> and he also implemented a calendar calculator of his own (last link on this Wiki page). Searching the internet for other such sites is difficult, because of the extensive number of Wikipedia clones that have copies of this entry, but considering the large number of contributors to this Wikipedia entry, the interest seems to be quite respectible.

The original research is NOT at Wikipedia, it is at the external links. What is at Wikipedia is a very brief summary that has been compiled by other users. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kalendis (talk • contribs) 18:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]