Talk:Leap year

section Algorithm: adding Excel example

Algorithm

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)

Excel

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

Fine, but an Excel formula is not the sort of thing WP would ordinarily supply. The shape of the algorithm in pseudo-code is appropriate, but translations into specific languages generally not. -- Elphion (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Section "Algorithm" - why?

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.

— United States Naval Observatory.

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)

Pending discussion, I have moved it to the end of the article where at least it (and its giant graphic) are not so disruptive. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The section seems redundant to me Jc3s5h (talk) 01:27, 22 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)

Could the section be moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_year_problem, where there is now a dead link to the algorithm? 2A02:8010:6008:0:A829:F7:2B5D:F60 (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

What citation format?

In the archives there is a thread about this, Talk:Leap year/Archive 3#What citation format?. I believe what was said there still holds, use {{citation}} rather than {{cite xxx}}. However, when formats where the elements of the citation are separated by commas, as with the Chicago Manual of Style footnote style, are used for the endnotes, bibliographies commonly separate the elements with periods. Since the Sources section resembles a bibliography, I have left the "cite xxx" templates there as they were. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

certain trees and plants bear twice during a leap year

i have noticed on my farm in trinidad many of my plants and fruit trees bear twice during a leap year i am from a tropical country in the carribbean can anyone contest to this? Gramchees (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

This is strictly anecdotal, and not very credible as a general phenomenon. A reliable source would help. -- Elphion (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Repeated information

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)

I'll look closer. But in the mean time, I restored Theklan's removal of the section on the Revised Julian calendar because that is different from the Julian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)