Talk:General Roman Calendar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

14 May: Saint Justine and Saint Isidore the Laborer in Calendarium Romanum Generale[edit]

Can anyone confirm or give source of those entries?

112.210.232.7: Stop adding celebrations inscribed to particular calendars[edit]

I don’t know who you are, however this artcle is not the right place to add celebrations inscribed to particular calendars. There are better places to add them, for example:

7otto (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change the format of the GRC celebration list[edit]

I would like to change the format from a bullet list to a table per month. I have already created it (see [1]). In it, I collected all the change sources (`1 Januar 1970` means it want inscribed in the very first version of GRC 1969 revision by Pope Paul IV in Calendarium Romanum). The notes could be moved to footnotes beneatch each table, thus reduce the table width. Alternatively, we could merge all tables into one table which would make sense so that readers could sort the table byt date, name, rank, change type, inscription date (`Since`), removal date (`Until`).

Now, I didn’t want to make the change without prior consensus.

@Medusahead, @Elizium52, @Jdcompguy, WDYT? 7otto (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should like it, thank you for your effort. Medusahead (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Medusahead!
Regarding the formatting, what would you prefer: a single table for the entire year or a table per month?
Anyway, can we sort tables by date without year here on Wikipedia? Or should we work this around by using `MM-DD` format (e.g. `05-01` for `1 May`? 7otto (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the table sorting, I just don't know. Maybe, separate tables for each month are easier to edit, but every version would be fine with me. Medusahead (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already discussed something similar for the national calendars (but I forgot about it) → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANational_calendars_of_the_Roman_Rite&section=2#Change_the_format_to_table_and_add_a_Change_type_column 7otto (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Medusahead, regarding the duplicate specification of rank (solemnity) for the Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God: while I agree it is already part of the celebration name, IMHO the celebration line format should be the same regardless of that. You keep removing it (e.g. here) is different from the celebration line format used for other celebrations. ATM, the line format is `* $dateOfMonth $month: $celebrationName – $rank` where `$celebrationName` includes links to other WP articles and is _precisely_ the same as the celebration name used in the English translation of the Roman Missal, ed. typ. tertia.
While in this talk section, I suggest (among other things) to change the line format, however, it rank name is to be explicitely specified regardless of whether it is part of the celebration name or not.
WDYT? 7otto (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have bothered you which I didn't intend to. (To point out that a solemnity is a solemnity looked always odd to me.) I think your suggestion is good. --Medusahead (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn’t bother me at all. :)
While I understand your POV, I personally prefer to stricly follow the format. YMMV.
Anyway, thank you adding the rank back! I didn’t think you would do that. ;)
---
Re the new format: no one else besides you reacted to the proposition (they might not be subscribed to the discussion or are busy with other stuff). Should we just apply the new format or should we wait a bit more?
Before I start reformatting the data, I’d like to know the following:
  1. should we use a single table or a table per month?
  2. what should be the format of celebration dates (they should be sortable by date)? Should we split them to two separate colums (`Date`, `Month`)?
  3. for ranks and change types, should it use an abbreviation (like `S` for solemnity) or should be spell them out in full?
I personally prefer:
  1. a single table for all celebrations;
  2. a single column of whatever format that sortable by date;
  3. to use an abbreviated ranks and change types.
That said, I am open for all options. 7otto (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Medusahead, I want to also emphasise that the suggested table format includes all celebrations that were ever inscribed in the GRC, even those which where changed. Each change to a celebration inscribed in the GRC would add populate `until` of the existing celebration and add a new table row with the new data and `since` set to the same date as the `until` of the old celebration.
I suggest to abide the following rules:
  1. List only celebration inscribed to the GRC. Celebrations not inscribed in the GRC will be removed.
  2. All added celebrations or changes to them should be sourced. Unsourced celebrations will be removed.
  3. Historical celebrations in the current GRC revision are kept. These celebrations have a date in the `Until` column.
WDYT? 7otto (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:General_Roman_Calendar&oldid=1219061541"