Talk:Hindu calendar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance for this Project's importance scale.

	Time Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents 1 WikiProject Time assessment rating comment 2 Discussion 3 epoch 4 Movement of Ritus and Chaitra 5 Hindu constellation

[edit] WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 18:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

This page only relates to the Hindu religious calendar. It would be good if there were also pages about the Indian secular calendars, especially Saka and Vikrama Samvat. - Posted by IP 195.93.21.5

I agree that the page is incomplete. However, if I am not mistaken, the Saka and Vikrama are only eras or methods of counting the years used by the Hindu solar and lunisolar calendars already described in the article. One of these days, either I or Jamadagni may add them (hint). — Joe Kress 17:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Usually the Shaka and Vikrama systems are used for year counting only with the lunisolar calendar. AFAIK the solar calendar (which I myself follow) uses only the counting from the beginning of the Kali Yuga, though our almanacs do mention (only once, at the beginning of the year) the current year number in the Shaka and Vikrama systems. The Shaka system has also been adopted by the Indian Government for the Indian National Calendar. I think it would be better to have a separate article for discussing these eras, since as Malaiya posted (see below), there is some history behind the different Samvats being used, especially the Shaka and Vikrama. So I think, Joe, that it would be better to simply update the Samvat article, and link to there from here, instead of bringing that here. Jamadagni 10:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think with 'Indian secular calendar' was meant the scheme described here, and used officially. As far as I can tell 'Vikrama Samvat' is somewhat similar [1]. This is a confusing topic - it should probably be put on a seperate page. squell 27 September 2005

Indian National Calendar is a seperate article now squell 22:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think squell is right, and IP 195.93.21.5 was under the misconception that "Shaka" and "Vikrama Samvat" mean some secular calendars that are used in India, possibly because the only secular Indian calendar, the Indian National Calendar uses the Shaka Samvat. And, methinks, if that IP 195.93.21.5 was searching for something secular, why was s/he looking for it under the explicitly religious word "Hindu"? Jamadagni 10:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Samvat is a common term using in the context of Indian history. Conversion from a samvat (there are several, and often with different computation methods) to common era can result in an error of one year (perhaps more). Thus a separate page on the term samvat is needed to address different samvats and variation in computation.

There is a significant history (and controversy) behind Vikram and Shaka Samvats, that needs to be added to the samvat page sometime. The Sikhs have adapted a new samvat recently, after considerable disagreement for a long time. - Malaiya

---

Well I flatter myself that I've done some serious cleaning-up here - edited articles this afternoon (in chronological order):

1. Nepali calendar
2. Vikrama Samvat (redir to Samvat)
3. Vikram calendar (redir to Samvat)
4. Bikram Sambat
5. Samvat
6. Hindu calendar
7. Samvat (minor - capitalization)

I've

1. given content to the Nepali calendar from Bikram Sambat - previously the former was redirected to the latter
2. redirected Vikrama Samvat to Samvat instead of Vikram calendar
3. added some text from Vikram calendar to Samvat and redirected there
4. added disambiguation to Bikrama Sambat
5. rewrote the Samvat article, and
6. added a link to the Samvat article in the Hindu calendar article (and other small changes)

I hope Joe and the other mages here approve. - Jamadagni 11:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] epoch

This article says epoch at 3102BCE 23rd jan while Kali Yuga says 3102BCE 18th Feb. Which one is correct--nids(♂) 00:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Both dates are correct, being the same day in two different calendars, the Julian and Gregorian. The difference is due to the Gregorian calendar dropping three leap days every 400 years. However, this article violates the Wikipedia Manual of Style which requires all dates before 1582 to be in the Julian calendar. I'm changing it. — Joe Kress 03:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(Moved from User talk:Joe Kress)
can we keep both the dates. There can be a future policy wherein all dates before 1st century will have to be defined in proleptic gregorian calender. Moreover we have precedence too, like in case of shakespeare and george washington, we have defined both the dates. Also, most of the time in India, the date is reported in proleptic Gregorian calender as 23rd Jan. Thanks.nids(♂) 08:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. If the epoch of the the Hindu calendar is usually given in the proleptic Gregorian calendar when Indian scholars discuss it, then that is similar to the Maya calendar where many Maya scholars insist on quoting the Maya epoch in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. However, this would be in contrast with Hindu calendar literature written by Western scholars who give the epoch only in the Julian calendar. The dual dates in William Shakespeare and George Washington do not apply to either calendar article because both the Julian and Gregorian calendars were in use during their lifetimes, hence have a special exemption in the Manual of Style. — Joe Kress 16:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia article and must follow its Manual of Style. To be understandable to Indian readers, I am willing to include the Gregorian date, but to obey the Manual of Style, the Julian date must be first. I don't think it is necessary to explain what "proleptic" means here, indeed, I am willing to not even mention it. I think using "first" year only fosters confusion when the epoch is not at the start of year one, thus the somewhat unfamiliar but much more accurate "zeroth" year is better. — Joe Kress 17:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have personally preferred gregorian first, but i accept your edits. thank you:)nids(♂) 18:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movement of Ritus and Chaitra

Is this relation of Ritus to lunisolar months absolute? Will they change with relation to english year like sun's makar sankraman? Is it ever possible that chaitra will occur in August?

(These questions were added to the Hindu calendar article at the end of Month and year of the solar calendar and to the Ritu article by 59.95.65.14 on 15 October 2006 and then moved to this talk page by Joe Kress.)

[edit] Hindu constellation

There is an article called Hindu constellation that covers much of the same ground as this one, but seems to concentrate more on the history. Perhaps editors with more knowledge might look at it see if merger or some other course of action is appropriate?Neelmack 11:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)