Talk:annus

RFC discussion: January–April 2022
I'm not sure we need usage notes describing various changes in the Roman calender, but at the very least we don't need the half page of Interesting Facts&trade; that we have there now Chuck Entz (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * covers the history. I suppose we need to draw the reader's attention to the fact the Roman years didn't correspond to ours in many ways: Roman years had from 300 to more than 365 days, had 10 or 12 regular months and sometimes extra inserted days or months, and didn't necessarily have the same number of months or days in every year. I don't think the "further reading" pedia link is enough. DCDuring (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need these usage notes at all. This is encyclopedic info; it's nothing lexical about the word, which just means "year". —Mahāgaja · talk 08:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The only thing I could see keeping is maybe the 10 month year thing, but even that's on the edge. Vininn126 (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I trimmed the usage notes. I kinda agree with DCD that it's worthwhile to draw the reader's attention to the fact that the Roman annus was (originally) different from what people today think of when they say year, but not at OP's length. BTW, separate issue: we're currently inconsistent in whether Latin months are capitalized (Mārtius, Iānuārius and Februārius) or lowercase (december), and whether they have noun sections or not, if anyone would like to standardize things... - -sche (discuss) 11:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This feels like the sort of thing where whichever was prescribed/most standard would get the entry, and non-capital forms would get "alternative form of"? I don't know enough about Latin to say for sure, tho, so maybe someone could add some insight. Vininn126 (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Marking resolved. This, that and the other (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)