Talk:Bikrami calendar

1 in 3[edit]

I was searching relationship between Raja Vikramāditya/Vikramjeet/Bikramjeet and Bikrami calendar, but I have found this calendar three time here on http://en.wikipedia.org/. First time it's name is Bikrami calendar Second is Vikram Samvat and Third time is named Hindu calendar. They are different Thesis but there topic is a single Calendar. ABDUL RAZZAQ QADRI (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger[edit]

Why is this a separate dedicated page talking about exactly identical subject as another one? Following wikipedia page is dedicated to exactly identical subject, both of of these pages should be merged into each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram_Samvat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.53.104 (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The two pages should be merged. utcursch | talk 22:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Utcursch: Any thoughts on the name? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: I don't really have a strong opinion on this, although I encounter "Vikrama Samvat" more frequently in sources on history-related articles. I'm OK with whatever is better supported by the reliable sources.

@Malaiya: You might be interested in this. I remember that sometime back you mentioned at Talk:Vikram Samvat that the Vikram Samvat of Nepal and India are different. utcursch | talk 00:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Utcursch: I would support a merger of Vikrami Samvat into Vikrami calendar. The merger of Vikrami Calendar into Vikrami Samvat... I don't see any appropriate reasons/RS to do that. Do you? Alternatively, Samvat should just focus on the various versions of the zero year, and the various theories on what marks the zero year. Indeed, there are several versions of Vikrami calendar/samvats... all that needs to be carefully summarized with sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with that. utcursch | talk 15:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Vikram Samvat article is very confused. It combines the classical India-wide Vikram Samvat which is based on Sidereal year with a modern revised Samvat in Nepal which uses the Tropical year without a clear distinction. I would suggest that Vikram Samvat be the article on the classical samvat, and Bikram Samvat be the article on the modern Nepali samvat, since in Nepal it is often spelled as Bikram Samvat.Malaiya (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the classical Vikram Samvat varies between Northern (Chaitradi with Amanata months) and Western/Southern (Kartikadi with Purminata months). Malaiya (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not explain all this in one article, and avoid WP:CFORK issues? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it may be better to have a single article. Moreover are you sure that calendar used in Nepal is not same as calendar used in India (specially in the regions like Sikkim and some other areas)? Jakichandan (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is better to merge all these pages belonging to Bikram Sambat or Vikram Samvat Prashant_Shahi 13:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolboi567 (talk • contribs)