Talk:Date of Easter

Christianity Start‑class Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Time Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by .

Merge with Easter Controversy article?

I think that this article's history section should be fairly brief. Merger would expand it to unwieldy lengths. I vote for keeping the Easter Controversy article separate, and removing the tag proposing the merger.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better in my view not to merge them, and summarize Easter Controversy here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is basically mathematical. It should indicate clearly for which flavor of Easter a particular formula is applicable, but the reasons historical or otherwise why there are conflicting formulas belong to Easter Controversy. (DPL 6 April 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.5.23.67 (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tag proposing Easter controversy merge as per consensus. What about Ecclesiastical full moon? --- DoctorKubla (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a no, particularly since you didn't give any reasons for. — LlywelynII 01:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Computus

"Computus" is an overly obscure, incorrect word. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/computus ; Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) makes it clear that "computus" refers to the tables, such as the Paschal new moon table, not the computation itself. I learned the computation of Easter's date long ago and occasionally reminded myself of the rules; this is the first time I recall seeing the word "computus". I suggest the mathematical part of Easter and this article be combined in "Easter, computation of date" or some similar name which can be found more easily. The use of "computus" seems to be obscurity for its own sake. Laguna CA (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Computus" is correct according to English-language reliable sources as required by WP:TITLE. For example, an entire 28-page chapter in The Oxford Companion to the year, itself a 1,000-page tome, is entitled Computus (801–828). It defines: "Computus is calculation, especially of the calendar, in particular but not exclusively for the determination of Easter." So computus does refer to the computation itself. Furthermore, this article's title has been stable for ten years without objection. About 5,500 articles and books that include "computus" in the title can be found on Google scholar. Needless to say, I object to any change in this article's title. — Joe Kress (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reference: http://www.onelook.com/?w=computus -- "Computus" does not appear to be in current, common usage in English now, or in the last century. Note that One Look cross-references many authoritative sources, including English (strict sense) sources; compare http://www.onelook.com/?w=Easter to see how many sources do not consider "computus" current English usage; it may be proper Latin usage, but this is en.wikipedia.org. From WP:TITLE "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, [fail] unambiguous, [???] and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. [fail]" IMHO, of course. Laguna CA (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Onelook ignores "unabridged" dictionaries, two of which include "computus", the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's Third New International Dictionary. The OED states that the word entered the English language in the mid 19th century. Nevertheless, no "abridged" dictionary, like collegiate dictionaries, include it. However, WP:TITLE allows "Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic." This allows a title that is unrecognizable to the vast majority of readers who are not familiar with the topic, which appears to be your concern. Consider the many technical articles in Wikipedia that have titles not familiar to the vast majority of readers. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Onelook includes at least "Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition" (see Easter definition, above). My top comment about computus referring to tables was sourced from W3NID(U). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna CA (talk • contribs) 03:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rename proposal

This article should be renamed to Easter computus with computus as a redirect there'. While the subject is certainly notable, the references do not support this the current title. The word computus is used generically in other astronomical calculations as well. Any objections?--RadioFan (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Computus is an ancient name for this computation. I have never seen the term used generically for other astronomical calculations and don't accept this claim without citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meeus Julian algorithm examples for 2008 and 2009

2008 and 2009 examples in the Julian Algorithm section are not correct considering the Gregorian calendar. They are not even on Sundays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claytom (talk • contribs) 02:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to Excel formula

The all-time Easter formula at the main page claims 1369 characters, but f.e. in Excel 2000-2003 the maximum of formula length is only 1024. I reduced length to 436 (to less than 1/3) characters, so it also works in elder Excel versions

By using date functionality, you can take all years from 1900 to 9999

=DATE(A1,4,MOD(A1%-11*MOD(A1,19)-DAY(A1%/4)-INT((A1%-INT(A1%/25-45.6))/3),30)+MOD(2*DAY(MOD(A1%,4)+DAY(MOD(A1,100)/4))-MOD(19*MOD(A1,19)+INT(A1%)-DAY(A1%/4)-INT((A1%-INT(A1%/25-45.6))/3),30)-MOD(A1,4)+4,7)-7*DAY((MOD(A1,19)+11*MOD(19*MOD(A1,19)+INT(A1%)-DAY(A1%/4)-INT((A1%-INT(A1%/25-45.6))/3),30)+22*MOD(2*DAY(MOD(A1%,4)+DAY(MOD(A1,100)/4))-MOD(19*MOD(A1,19)+INT(A1%)-DAY(A1%/4)-DAY((A1%-DAY(A1%/25+11.3))/3),30)-MOD(A1,4),7))/451)-9)

By using text functionality, you can take all years of Gregorian calendar from 1583 to 9999

=A1&TEXT(82+MOD(A1%-11*MOD(A1,19)-DAY(A1%/4)-INT((A1%-INT(A1%/25-45.6))/3),30)+MOD(2*DAY(MOD(A1%,4)+DAY(MOD(A1,100)/4))-MOD(19*MOD(A1,19)+INT(A1%)-DAY(A1%/4)-INT((A1%-INT(A1%/25-45.6))/3),30)-MOD(A1,4)+4,7)-7*DAY((MOD(A1,19)+11*MOD(19*MOD(A1,19)+INT(A1%)-DAY(A1%/4)-INT((A1%-INT(A1%/25-45.6))/3),30)+22*MOD(2*DAY(MOD(A1%,4)+DAY(MOD(A1,100)/4))-MOD(19*MOD(A1,19)+INT(A1%)-DAY(A1%/4)-DAY((A1%-DAY(A1%/25+11.3))/3),30)-MOD(A1,4),7))/451),"-MM-DD")

Frank Schneider, Germany 15.195.185.82 (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]