Leap Week?
I actually wouldn't classify this as a "leap week" calendar. Unless I'm missing something. - Nhprman 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- You did not make explicit what you were referring to. There is a link to Leap week calendar in the See Also section. This replaced a link to the non-existent 53 week calendar page. Karl 09:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I thought it was fairly clear - the World Calendar, which has two off-calendar DAYS is not really a "leap week" calendar because it has no leap week, which is usually 7-days in length. Am I wrong? - Nhprman 18:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- That is only half the story. You haven't referred to the text that allegedly classifies the World Calendar as a leap week calendar. Karl 12:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- What text are you talking about? What I was referring to was the new link to the category, which as plainly incorrect, since this is not a leap week calendar. It's been deleted. I see nothing in the text of the article that indicates (falsely) this is a leap week calendar, if that's what you meant. - Nhprman 23:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- The text you claim exists and asserts that the World Calendar is a leap week calendar. Your answer makes clear that this is just the link. Whether such a link really would assert anything about world calendar is questionable. Karl 15:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I can't believe we're going round and round on this! Categories simply cannot be placed willy-nilly. If someone put a "category:13-month calendar" link on the World Calendar article, it would be just as inaccurate, and would be removed. End of discussion (I hope! This is the BS that goes on at Wikipedia. Let's not do this here, okay?) For the record, I never asserted there was "text" included in the article that was incorrect. Nhprman 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've just checked the entire history of this article and see it was never in the category of leap week calendars. Your implied assertion that it was so is incorrect and that's why the discussion has not ended. I think you have confused the See Also section with categories. Karl 08:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are absolutely correct. It was under "see also" - which makes no sense, either, since this is in no way a leap week calendar. Why are we belaboring this anyway? Let's all just try to be more accurate and precise in our postings here. - Nhprman 14:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)