` March 2007 (UTC)  :23-March-2007: I see your point about using ``later`` but, to someone reading the articles, there is no doubt about the word ``slower`` because the phrase is ``10-day slower`` (not just ``slower`` somehow).  Consider those articles from a reader's viewpoint, and the wording makes sense:  even a watch that is ``5-minutes fast`` tends to stay 5 minutes ahead for days; it is very rare for a watch to gain 5 minutes per hour.  So, the phrase ``10-day slower`` is quite logical to a reader as meaning 10 days behind, and if confused, the reader could then link to ``Julian calendar`` for more explanation.  However, suppose the wording were changed: from the other extreme, stating more about the ``slower`` calendar could then confuse many other people who are reading the article about 16XX and would be confused to find details about adopting the Gregorian calendar, rather than events of 16XX.  The current wording is a happy medium. - 12:27, 23`