`.  ::OK, thanks for the citation.  I don't have easy access to this and since my interest stems from an interest in ancient chronology, which standardises on the Julian calendar, I rarely have actual occasion to perform Gregorian/Julian conversions.  That being said, I assume from your description that the table you refer to is similar to the one you have generated in Talk:Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars#Need to review these conversions??  If I saw this table without your interpretive discussion, I would not think it showed that the difference between the two calendars depends on which direction you are going.  Rather I would think it was illustrating that the effect of dropping the date of February 29 in the Gregorian calendar causes the difference between it and the Julian calendar to increase by a day from that point forward.  Joe's discussion above illustrates the theory you both describe more clearly and explicitly.    ::What I described as ``the usual convention`` = the way I have always understood it, not much different from my understanding that 2+2=4, so perhaps a little hyperbolic (I did say ``AFAIK``).  I don't understand your comment that it is ``hard to follow``.  It seems to me obvious and natural that the relationship between the calendars would change at the point where the Gregorian calendar omits a February 29 that exists only in the Julian calendar, and only at that point, since that is the sole difference in calendar structure.  To me, the convention you and Joe are describing is much harder to understand:  it is asymmetrical, it creates two transition points not one, and the second has an undefined state that has no obvious necessity or value.  But that's just my opinion.  ::On reliable sources:  Since ``there is no blow-by-blow explanation of the difference column``, the Almanac is not explicit enough to qualify as a reliable source for the asymmetric convention.  Such a source would need to be something authoritative that actually works through all the complexities that Joe describes above, or close to it.  I don't have a source for the symmetric convention to hand  until this discussion I was not aware that anyone thought of it any other way, or even that they could, and a quick pass through my own library isn't helpful.  For either convention, the source should be a book on calendars that works through the transition point in detail.  I suggested Blackburn & Holford-Strevens as one possibility, perhaps there are others.  ::This article is not the main discussion of the relationship between the two calendars.  It's possible to read the current text in a way that is consistent with either convention, now that you have eliminated the ``full two-week discrepancy`` comment.  Hopefully we can keep this article out of the debate on that basis.    ::The places where the convention really needs to be settled are the Gregorian calendar#Difference between Gregorian and Julian calendar dates and Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars discussions, both of which purport to go into detail.  I see you and the IP editor are starting to revert each other's table in the Gregorian calendar#Difference between Gregorian and Julian calendar dates discussion.  I suggest you hold off until a good RS is found.  I also note that that table is only showing a single value for the difference, and that your version is standardising on Julian 29 February as a sole transition point, with no mention of either Gregorian 1 March or asymmetric differences.  That does not accurately reflect the convention being proposed.  Also those two discussions should use the same convention.  They currently do not.    `