This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leap year article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 29, 2008, February 29, 2012, and February 29, 2016. |
This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
The following pseudocode determines whether a year is a leap year or a common year in the Gregorian calendar (and in the proleptic Gregorian calendar before 1582). The year variable being tested is the integer representing the number of the year in the Gregorian calendar, and the tests are arranged to dispatch the most common cases first. Care should be taken in translating mathematical integer divisibility into specific programming languages.
if (year is not exactly divisible by 4) then (it is a common year)
else
if (year is not exactly divisible by 100) then (it is a leap year)
else
if (year is not exactly divisible by 400) then (it is a common year)
else (it is a leap year)
This algorithm translates into Excel like this, whereas year stands for the cell which refers to the input cell:
=IF(NOT((year/4=TRUNC(year/4)));"common year";IF(NOT((year/100=TRUNC(year/100)));"leap year";IF(NOT((year/400=TRUNC(year/400)));"common year";"leap year")))
or reversed, more simplified:
=IF((year/400=TRUNC(year/400));"leap year";IF((year/100=TRUNC(year/100));"common year";IF((year/4=TRUNC(year/4));"leap year";"common year"))
-- 23:17, 20 August 2015 31.151.83.20
Can anyone provide a convincing case for retention of the section Leap year § Algorithm. It looks to me like one editor's pet project. At Leap year § Gregorian calendar, we already have the concise statement
Every year that is exactly divisible by four is a leap year, except for years that are exactly divisible by 100, but these centurial years are leap years if they are exactly divisible by 400. For example, the years 1700, 1800, and 1900 are not leap years, but the years 1600 and 2000 are.
with a sensibly-sized graphic beside it. What value does this "Algorithm" section add over and above what has been said already? How is it not a WP:NOTMANUAL violation? Furthermore its suggestion that it has any validity before 1582, let alone in the years BC/BCE, is surely just wrong? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
As no case has been made to retain that section, I have deleted it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I think that the information is repeated in this article. We have first a section called "Julian calendar" and, then, another one called "Julian reform" with the same information but more elaborated. It would be interesting to merge if you agree that it is a repetition. Theklan (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leap_year&diff=prev&oldid=1230828637
was reverted for some unknown reason. How could we handle this and keep it as the current form, with the example as Halloween and not Christmas? 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:99C2:CF40:D108:35E0 (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)