View source for Talk:Date of Easter

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Low|jesus-work-group=yes|bible=yes|bible-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Time|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Holidays|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Death|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Festivals|importance=low}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 2
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Date of Easter/Archive %(counter)d
}}

{{Archive box|auto=yes}}

==Whether the pattern repeats==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 10:02, 21 September 2123 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|4850964145}} 
{{Ping|Tom Peters}} Tom, what do you think? I added the following paragraph:

 One may wonder whether the pattern of dates of Easter repeats. As can be verified in a table of the dates, the dates from 1948 to 2047 are the same as for those 152 years later (2100 to 2199). This period of 152 years is one day short of two [[Calippic cycle]]s, and is a whole number of weeks. Also the dates for 1800 to 1899 are the same as those for 152 years later (1952 to 2051) in all but 11 cases. The epacts differ by 1, as do the dates of the ecclesiastical 14th of Nisan, but usually the next Sunday falls on the same date. It is possible to have the same dates for the 14th of Nisan and on the same day of the week for other intervals, but since the golden number is not the same, this situation lasts for less than 19 years at a time. For example, the 100-year period 1980-2079 is almost repeated 220 years later (2200-2299), but with six cases that don't agree. An interval of 18,000 years achieves this in some cases

 Footnote (which I can't seem to put here in the talk page): It is easy to verify that this occurs if the interval contains 58 lunar corrections and the golden number of the first of the two years in question is less than 13, or if there are 57 lunar corrections and the first golden number is greater than 12. In either case, these cancel out the 135 solar corrections.

 and is also a whole number of 400-year Gregorian cycles, but again the golden number will be different, so the pattern does not repeat exactly.

Five minutes later Jc3s5h reverted it, saying that it's a "wall of text" that doesn't answer the question I asked at the beginning -- whether the pattern repeats, and he says it repeats in 5.7 million years. Well of course, we all know that. But does that justify reverting my edit? The question I mean is whether the pattern repeats for a while, like a century, and the answer is yes. I think it's quite interesting, and should be in the article. [[User:Eric Kvaalen|Eric Kvaalen]] ([[User talk:Eric Kvaalen|talk]]) 19:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

:I was going to revert it and Jc3s5h beat me to it by minutes. It reads ''far too much'' like a blog post, beginning with "One may wonder whether the pattern of dates of Easter repeats" which is exceedingly unecyclopedic. It was also too far too long for the thoughts expressed. Arguably it works better as a talk page post here to open a discussion on whether/how to express your thoughts. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 19:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

::So why don't you modify the wording instead of deleting the whole thing?? I wish you people would stop complaining every time someone puts something interesting into an article. Nobody is forcing you to read it, after all! Other people might want to read it. [[User:Eric Kvaalen|Eric Kvaalen]] ([[User talk:Eric Kvaalen|talk]]) 20:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
:::I didn't delete it. But if I had I would reject your point because it's not my job to correct your failings. Why should I put effort into dragging out some sort of value in your edit when I can't see any? It's not interesting and it shouldn't be in the article. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 20:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

:::: You and Jc3s5h act like Caesar watching the gladiators, and giving a thumbs up or thumbs down. Who made you the judges? I think it's very interesting that the pattern repeats exactly or almost exactly over periods of 100 years, at certain intervals. Another case I didn't put is that 1700-1747 is exactly the same as 1852-1899. One would think that people interested in Easter would show a bit of Christian charity. [[User:Eric Kvaalen|Eric Kvaalen]] ([[User talk:Eric Kvaalen|talk]]) 09:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::In that case, we may as well have a [[Triumvirate (ancient Rome)|triumvirate]]. I'd have reverted it too, per [[WP:TRIVIA]]. It is a mathematical artefact of no significance. A form of [[pareidolia]].  --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 09:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC) revised 09:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::<small>I love a thread where pareidolia is an issue. :) [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 10:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)</small>
:::::::I think the issue is interesting enough that '''''if''''' a good source (other than the dates themselves) can be found, and '''''if''''' it can be stated briefly and clearly, it '''''may''''' be relevant for the article -- but it is up to [[user:Eric Kvaalen]] or others who want to include it to demonstrate that. In the Gregorian calendar there is a period-4 stemming from leap years and a period-7 stemming from days of the week, combining into a period-28 (not related to churches, Easter or holidays) so that e.g. from 1901 to 2099, the calendar for any two years separated by a multiple of 28 years is the same (all Mondays fall on the same dates, etc.) - but the "missing" leap years in 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, 2200 ect. spoil the fun. Incidentally, the true period-400 in the leap years coincide with a whole number of weeks (400*365 + 100 - 3 = 146097 days = 20871 weeks), so there is a true, perpetual period-400 in the Gregorian calendar. -- Is that relevant here? No, but if similar neat patterns could be descirbed for dates of Easter - and sourced - including it would be fine. [[User:Nø|Nø]] ([[User talk:Nø|talk]]) 12:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

::::::::{{Ping|JMF|Nø}} Well, as explained in our article, the only true period for the Easter dates is 5,700,000 years. I disagree that what I wrote is just a "mathematical artefact of no significance". The reason what I wrote works is that 152 years is a day short of two [[Calippic cycle]]s, which means that the phase of the moon is more or less the same, and the fact that a Calippic cycle has four days more than a whole number of weeks means that two Calippic cycles minus 1 day is a whole number of weeks. So whenever the 152 years spans one year like 1800 where the Gregorian calendar drops a leap year, and there's also a lunar correction, then you get periods that follow exactly the same pattern, for 48 or 100 years. If the 152 years does not span a year like 1800 (for instance going from 1900 to 2052), then we have exactly two Calippic cycles, so the day of the week is off by 1. That gives periods where the pattern is almost the same. All this is of interest to mathematically minded people like me. I have no idea where to find a reference for all this, but why do we need a reference for something that can be easily checked? We don't need a reference in order to say that it's an interesting question, after all. I suggest that those of you who don't find it interesting stop reading it and go find something else to do in life rather than deleting the work of other people. [[User:Eric Kvaalen|Eric Kvaalen]] ([[User talk:Eric Kvaalen|talk]]) 16:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Eric Kvaalen asked "...but why do we need a reference for something that can be easily checked?" If a numerical curiosity is mentioned in several well-regarded sources, that hints that it's worth including in our article. If no reliable sources felt it was worth mentioning, it probably isn't worth mentioning. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 16:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|I suggest that those of you who don't find it interesting stop reading it and go find something else to do}} That could be addressed to our readership. This article isn't a personal blog existing for your self-indulgence. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 19:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I hope it's clear from what I wrote yesterday that this is not a case of pareidolia. I have a question for Caligula, Claudius, and Nero: You say what I wrote is not interesting, and I suppose you are concerned for the disk space of Wikimedia. What if I find three μαρτῠ́ρους who will attest to finding that it is interesting? Is it still you who get to decide? [[User:Eric Kvaalen|Eric Kvaalen]] ([[User talk:Eric Kvaalen|talk]]) 07:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
:You need to read [[WP:CONSENSUS]] (although "find" sounds like you also need to read [[WP:CANVASS]]). And don't you mean Caesar, Pompey and Crassus? [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 07:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
::And you have to show a reliable source that considers this factoid to have any significance, specifically in respect of calculation of the date of Easter. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 15:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

:::It's Catch 22. There are three Caesars, or shall I call them watchful dragons, guarding this page to prevent any changes they don't agree with. If they revert you, you're stuck. You can't revert back or you get warnings of "edit wars". You can't ask someone else, or you get accused of canvasing. I have three friends who I think would agree with me that what I wrote was interesting, but I'm told that it doesn't matter. What the Caesars want is what happens. I'm told that I have to find a "reliable source" to say that it's interesting! Just another way of preserving the statum quo ante. Now I'll probably get a warning for arguing. [[User:Eric Kvaalen|Eric Kvaalen]] ([[User talk:Eric Kvaalen|talk]]) 06:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
::::No warning, but I am surprised that after 18 years and 10k edits on Wikipedia (I just checked) these very basic policy principles seem to be news to you. Do you really not know about [[WP:CONSENSUS]], [[WP:CANVASS]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:DUE]]? [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 07:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I know the cards are stacked against me. [[User:Eric Kvaalen|Eric Kvaalen]] ([[User talk:Eric Kvaalen|talk]]) 10:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::Eric, no, the cards are not stacked against you, or to be more precise, they are stacked against any editor who tries to add original research or trivia. Let me repeat: all you need to do is to find "a reliable source that considers this factoid to have any significance, specifically in respect of calculation of the date of Easter". Consensus (or lack thereof) does not trump reliable sources. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 10:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Well, I don't actually agree with that - [[WP:ONUS]] says specifically otherwise. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 11:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::True but as it is a (very) hypothetical question, I didn't consider it necessary to qualify my response with details of the more advanced aspects of source quality and preponderance of expert opinion. We are nowhere near that stage; right now, we have no sources whatever that attach any significance to Eric's mathematical coincidence. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 12:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::But to be unambiguously clear: if Eric succeeds in producing citations that meet my test, I will change my !vote from 'oppose' to 'support'. "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"{{mdash}}[[Paul Samuelson]].  --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 15:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::There were three issues with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Date_of_Easter&diff=1174773074&oldid=1174543568 this edit], only one of which was lack of sourcing. The second is whether it's worth making the point. I could be swayed on that by sourcing but it would take more than [[WP:DUE|one rogue source]] to do that. But the third is the meandering blog-style [[WP:WALLOFTEXT]] would have to be converted into encyclopedic language which was considerably shorter (and which certainly doesn't begin with "One may wonder..."). [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 20:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::If it hasn't materialised by now, it isn't going to. My point was about the general principle. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 22:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

== Date of Orthdox Easter, 2026? ==

I reverted a good faith edit in main space by {{u|208.85.89.104}}, who challenges the table under [[Date of Easter#Meeus's Julian algorithm]]: {{tq|In the table below, the Gregorian day for Easter is listed as '13 April 2026'.  The correct date is '12 April 2026'.}} because it was a comment in main space. The table has a hidden note that "some dates may be wrong". Is this a case in point? Google agrees with the date of 12/4. If it is indeed wrong (as it seems), what is the best way to identify it? [[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 17:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
:The calendar on the website of the [[Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America]][https://www.goarch.org/chapel/calendar?month=4&year=2026&viewStyle=GridView&viewType=ViewReadings] shows "Great and Holy Pascha" on 12 April 2026. ''Pascha'' means Easter Sunday in Eastern Orthodoxy.[https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-church-year/easter-sunday-the-holy-pascha] Good enough? [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 18:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
::yes but doesn't solve our problem. 12/04/26 is undoubtedly the correct date. So either Meus got it wrong or there is an error in our implementation. Either way, we can't let it stand. My question stands: what is the best way to identify it? [[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 19:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
:I have the 2nd edition (1998) "With corrections as of August 10, 2009" (copyright page). The Julian algorithm on page 69 only yields a Julian calendar date, so some unknown editor converted the algorithm results to Gregorian. timeanddate.com gives 12 April 2026 as the Gregorian date, and that converts to 30 <s>May</s>March 2026 Julian. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 20:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Anyway, for now I have deleted the J -> G conversion code, as it is better to have nothing rather than something false. 

<nowiki>
|-
! colspan=2| Gregorian calendar equivalent
| 27 April 2008 || 19 April 2009 || 4 April 2010 || 24 April 2011 || 1 May 2016 || {{#expr:(14+((((19 * ({{CURRENTYEAR}} mod 19) + 15) mod 30) + ((2*({{CURRENTYEAR}} mod 4) + 4*({{CURRENTYEAR}} mod 7) − ((19 * ({{CURRENTYEAR}} mod 19) + 15) mod 30) + 34) mod 7) + 114) mod 31) + 1) mod 30 - 1}} {{MONTHNAME|{{#expr:floor((((19 * ({{CURRENTYEAR}} mod 19) + 15) mod 30) + ((2*({{CURRENTYEAR}} mod 4) + 4*({{CURRENTYEAR}} mod 7) − ((19 * ({{CURRENTYEAR}} mod 19) + 15) mod 30) + 34) mod 7) + 114 + 13) / 31)}}}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} || {{#expr:(14+((((19 * ({{NEXTYEAR}} mod 19) + 15) mod 30) + ((2*({{NEXTYEAR}} mod 4) + 4*({{NEXTYEAR}} mod 7) − ((19 * ({{NEXTYEAR}} mod 19) + 15) mod 30) + 34) mod 7) + 114) mod 31) + 1) mod 30 - 1}} {{MONTHNAME|{{#expr:floor((((19 * ({{NEXTYEAR}} mod 19) + 15) mod 30) + ((2*({{NEXTYEAR}} mod 4) + 4*({{NEXTYEAR}} mod 7) − ((19 * ({{NEXTYEAR}} mod 19) + 15) mod 30) + 34) mod 7) + 114 + 13) / 31)}}}} {{NEXTYEAR}}
</nowiki>

When somebody corrects it, it can be reinstated. Or just do it all manually, as the first four entries have been.--[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 20:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
: Meanwhile, I have reinstated the line using inspection and simple calculation. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 00:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
{{od|1}}I implemented several algorithms in Excel, and compared them to each other and some sources that list Easter dates. The algorithms that agreed were Meeus, the shortest algorithm in ''Mapping Time'' by E. G. Richards, Richards' Chapter 15, "Calendars" in the ''Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac'' 3rd ed., sample data for 1997&ndash;2020 from Bonnie Blackburn and Leofranc Holford-Strevens, ''The Oxford Companion to the Year'' (corrected printing, 2003), and the [[Dionysius Exiguus' Easter table]] for the year 576. All the algorithms and sample data in those sources save one agreed with each other. The one source that disagreed with the algorithms was the sample data from the 4th edition of ''Calendrical Calculations''. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jc3s5h|contribs]]) 05:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)</small>

Why keep in the same table the dates of long-past Julian Easter Sundays (2008 to 2011 and 2016)? Would it not be more logical and useful to tabulate the dates from 2020 to 2030 (and each year delete the first and add a new at the end).? [[User:AstroLynx|AstroLynx]] ([[User talk:AstroLynx|talk]]) 11:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:The section is about the algorithm, not the specific years presented. The only reason the intermediate results in the calculation would be shown is so a person implementing the algorithm could check that it is correctly implemented. In order to present the results for a future year like 2027, the editor would have to implement the algorithm. This is a significant burden on future editors; just look how long it took to find and investigate the error first described by {{IPuser|208.85.89.104}}. I'd like to keep the worked examples; it is now the only correct worked example I can find.
:{{ping|SBN4004}}It appears the table was put in its present form in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Date_of_Easter&diff=next&oldid=275278355 this edit] by SBN4004 on 5 March 2009. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 12:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Paweł Ziemian}}I came across a related module: [[Module:Easter]]. It was started by a Wikipedia editor Paweł Ziemian in 2013. Like all modules, it's written in Lua. The comments in the source code indicate it's based on the official tables. It isn't the Meeus algorithm. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 13:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
: {{ping|AstroLynx}} We have [[List of dates for Easter]] for what you are seeking. — [[User:Crissov|Christoph]] [[User talk:Crissov|Päper]] 13:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
:: Thanks, I am familiar with that page (and I maintain my own online website with Easter Sunday dates for many more years). [[User:AstroLynx|AstroLynx]] ([[User talk:AstroLynx|talk]]) 14:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem in the algorithm may be the variable <nowiki>NEXTYEAR</nowiki>. If one replaces this with <nowiki>#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}+1</nowiki> , then I obtain 12 April 2026 for the correct Gregorian equivalent of next year's Orthodox Easter Sunday. [[User:AstroLynx|AstroLynx]] ([[User talk:AstroLynx|talk]]) 14:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

==Removal of confusing footnote==
{{ping|JMF}} added a footnote in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Date_of_Easter&diff=next&oldid=1285043974 this edit]], which read
{{quote|At the time of the Council of Nicaea, the Christian church used the [[Julian calendar]] but, by definition, the date according to the Julian calendar and the date according to the [[Proleptic Gregorian calendar]] are identical.}}
I thought this was confusing, so I deleted it. In the phrase "the date according to", the date of what? Easter? The date of each real-life day around the time of the Council of Nicaea? Is there a source confirming whichever meaning is intended? What is the purpose of mentioning the proleptic Gregorian calendar anyway? [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 13:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking further back in the edit history, I see that earlier on 11 April, the calendar mentioned, rather than being "modern Gregorian calendar", was "[[Anno Domini|Western secular calendars]], which is a link to our "Anno Domini" article. That's a bad phrase and a bad link. ''Anno Domini'' is about counting years, but dating Easter is mostly about finding a date within a year. Minimizing the dates when Passover and Easter fell on the same day was a goal of those who devised the Easter computation, both in the 5th & 6th century, and in the 16th century. But apparently the Jewish method for deciding the Passover date had changed in the interim. Looks like this paragraph needs some work. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 14:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:I agree. I felt myself to be digging ever deeper the hole I was trying to get out of. I saw the same nonsensical "western secular calendar", tried to fix it but just got into a semantic maelstrom. Anyone? [[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 14:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
::The "Background" section is focused on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries, so it would be better to link to [[Julian calendar]], perhaps mentioning that it's a forerunner of the calendar used worldwide today. We shouldn't assume that readers know the names ''Julian'' and ''Gregorian'', but we should be careful not bog the reader down in too much detail too soon. [[User:Indefatigable|Indefatigable]] ([[User talk:Indefatigable|talk]]) 16:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to just delete the "Background" section. It seems like every sentence has problems.
*"Easter commemorates the [[resurrection of Jesus]]" According to Blackburn and Holford-Strevens p. 791, the 2nd century Christians of Asia Minor celebrated the Passion of Jesus (crucifixion) as Easter.
*"which Christians believe to have occurred on the third day (inclusive) after the beginning of [[Passover]]" No citation, and I've read the Gospels don't quite agree on this.
*"In the Hebrew [[lunisolar calendar|lunisolar]] calendar, Passover begins at twilight on the 14th day of [[Nisan]]." Supported by citations to the Bible, which is original research.
Soon we get into the sentence about the Hebrew calendar not having a simple relationship with the Gregorian calendar.

If we start putting enough details to make this section correct, I think it will be almost as long as the section it's supposed to summarize. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 23:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Phew! I thought the same, which is why I concluded that my attempts to repair it were just digging a deeper hole. 
:Off with its head. I will do so now. [[WP:BRD]] applies as usual if anyone disagrees. [[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 09:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::{{done}}. The opening <nowiki>{{see also|Computus clock#Background|Easter controversy}}</nowiki> got 'disappeared' in [[collateral damage]]. If anyone can find a new home for it, please go ahead. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 09:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

===Still a confusing mess===
Even changing to say Julian doesn't help matters much:
{{Blockquote|The Hebrew calendar does not have a simple relationship with the  [[Julian calendar]]: it resynchronizes with the solar year by [[intercalation (timekeeping)|intercalating]] a leap month every two or three years with a [[Lunar new year#Middle East|new lunisolar year]] on 1&nbsp;Nisan.<ref>''Hebrew-English Bible'', {{bibleverse||Num|28:14|HE}}.</ref>{{efn|Later,{{clarify|reason=Later than when?|date=April 2025}} Rabbinic Jews revised the [[Hebrew calendar]], basing it on 19-year [[Metonic cycle]].{{cn|date=April 2025}} }} }}
We seem to have a tautology: intevmcalation is needed to establish 1 Nisan, which determines when intercalation is needed. The relationship of Nisan to the xquinox was critically important to the early Christian church and thence the DoE, so we need to get this right. But it needs to be succinct because we really don't want to get readers bogged down in the minutiae. We can't just gloss over it because it sets the context for the 14 Nisan v equinox issue. Brain melt. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 18:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:Resolved by deleting the whole section per discussion above. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 09:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)



{{Reflist talk}}{{Notelist talk}}

==Citation style==

Is there general agreement among the editors active on this article that the citation style should be [[Help:Citation Style 1|Citation Style 1]]? Of course there would be exceptions for specialized citation templates such as {{tl|Bibleverse}}. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 14:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:Harvard referencing ({{tl|sfnp}} and {{tl|harvp}}) is generally better, it produces cleaner entries in the references section and better documented sources. The overall effect looks more scholarly and professional.
:Ref/ref citations  are ok for quick'n'dirty but clog the source and are really irritating where the same source is cited multiple times so the whole metadata has to be given all over again just so that the page= can be changed. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JMF|JMF]] ([[User talk:JMF#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JMF|contribs]]) 15:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)</small>
::When I follow the {{tl|harvp}} and start reading, I come to [[Template:Harvard citation year brackets#Usage]], which contains an example that uses {{tl|Cite book}}. So I don't understand the distinction between what JMF prefers and what I regard as Citation Style 1. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 17:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:::In that case we have no dispute. 
:::(Yes, you are absolutely correct, that is exactly how each source in the sources list should be given. My misunderstanding of your intent arose because, in some other articles, the term "CS1/2" has been used as a cypher for the ref/ref method.)
:::So now I'm confused. Is there another citation style in use in the article (apart from Bibleref?) that caught your attention? [[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 19:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::::I noticed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Date_of_Easter&diff=1285528507&oldid=1285256224 this edit] made today, which does use the &lt;ref>, which doesn't use any style I recognize. I briefly searched the talk page and the talk page archives, and didn't see any discussion on what citation style to use. I did note the article goes back to 2003, which is probably before the citation templates were created. So I don't know if a real consensus was ever established to use the citation templates included in Citation Style 1. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 19:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::We get many approximations and imitations of correct citation syntax. Normally I just correct them without further ado. End of story. I doubt that {{u|BobKilcoyne}} was making a point. If I can correct it now I will. [[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 19:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{done}} [[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 20:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

== Table: "Paschal full moon dates for all years since AD 931"  in section "Julian calendar" ==

This table uses sideways writing, which is deprecated per [[MOS:ACCESS]] (it is illegible to screen-reader software, it seems). I don't see a compelling reason for it to do so: the Golden Numbers could just as easily be listed in a column rather than a row. But before I spend hours table-wrangling, does anyone have a good reason why I should let it stand? [[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 20:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:I look through the history of the article, and I see lots of cosmetic changes to this table, which obscures who added it and when. It has no citation. It looks extremely suspicious to me, because it purports the difference between the date of the paschal full moon stated in the Julian calendar is always 13 days earlier than the same event stated in the Gregorian calendar, ever since AD 931. I don't believe it. I have marked the section as disputed. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 21:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, that's painfully obvious now that I look past the cosmetics. The constant 13 days difference shows it to be nonsensical. 
::Another one for the guillotine, I think, as I can't see anyone being willing to spend the time (and probably violating WP:NOR in the process) making it do what it says on the tin. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 23:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
:::I found the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Date_of_Easter&diff=prev&oldid=1113293 edit] that first introduced the table, from 4 July 2003, by the IP editor [[Special:Contributions/194.109.250.130|194.109.250.130]]. Since then the article has developed two redundant sections describing tabular methods for computing Easter. The "[[Date of Easter#Julian calendar|Julian calendar]]" section seems to me to have errors, old requests for citations, and is wandering and disorganized. I think we should delete the section. If there is anything of interest in the remaining sections, we can add it.
:::In addition, I used the tables in the ''Explanatory Supplement to the Ephemeris'' (Her Majesty's Stationery Office: 1961), pp 422&ndash;423, to perform the calculation, and found I would have to use an additional table, plus construct a table of my own, to do the calculation. I can't see the point of having the table under discussion if it is only one of several needed to do the calculation. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 12:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

== Tables vs. Pseudocode. ==

I made a contribution to this article earlier this year replacing Gauss's algorithm, which was described in a table, with pseudocode.

User @[[User:Crissov|Crissov]] has undone the edit "because the table more accurately reflects Gauss's notation". The discussion, I suppose, is: Does that matter? Why? I'm sure there are countless aspects of the notations used 200 years ago that we have long since abandoned. Why preserve this one? Isn't it more important to convey the information clearly?

And then there is the fact that the article links to a beautiful scan of the original work by Gauss. Citation number 58. You can see for yourself there, there is no table of any sort. He described the algorithm longhand. You can see right there in ''Seite 2'', page 122, The three paragraphs with the roman numerals which outline the operations. If the intent is "preservation" let's just translate his work directly! Should be something roughly like "Divide the number of the year for which you want to calculate Easter by 19, by 4 and by 7..." [[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]] ([[User talk:Introscopia|talk]]) 19:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)