This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
!!Were there any months with __31 days__ in February?
Yes, until Julius and Augustus Caesar took them away to make July and August 31 days. RickK 04:23, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This is probably a myth, albeit a very old one. There is no historical evidence for the claim that Augustus changed the days in February. Claus T 13:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There is theory/comments going around that February has less days because in the Book of Job 3:1-10, Job cursed the day he was born and asked the Lord to blot out that day, let it not be known. Please provide feedback and any proof/evidence you may find in history. - (unsigned)
This is just something someone made up. It's wrong. Job was speaking figuratively about his personal misery, rather than concretely about calendar reform. The Book of Job was written about 470 B.C. The author would not have been using a Roman calendar. In any case, February was introduced into the Roman calendar by Pompilius (c. 715-673 BC), and moved to its position between January and March in 450 B.C. The length of February was set at 28 days by Julius Caesar in 45 BC - without reference to Job. It is also sometimes said that Augustus shortened February to lengthen the month named after him, August. It's also not true. -- Nunh-huh
The Job thing is a joke. You're right, Nunh-huh, the author of Job would have used the Jewish calendar not the Roman. Jess Cully 00:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
was there February 30 in France after The French Revolution?
Why didn't the Swedes continue carrying out their plan to drop the leap days in February 1704 and 1708? -- Metropolitan90 16:31, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Good question! My guess is that they just forgot. Others think that the Swedes soon realised in 1700 that they were out of step with everyone else in the world, and that they'd be better off going back to the Julian or adopting the Gregorian ASAP (though that doesn't explain why it took them till 1712 to get round to it). Jess Cully 00:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Climate Models often simplify things by having 12 months of 30 days.
Not sure whether this is worth a mention in this article though. crandles 21:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Notice a link on the page goes to a non-existant page, http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/models/GDT/ch23.html Not looked to see if the proper connection would be found. Brian 81.174.167.128 20:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I remember reading something around 1999-2000 that sometime between 3000-3999 AD there will be a February 30, in order to keep the sun and calenar together. If this is so, we need to add it to this page.-- Bedford 04:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think they'll worry about it. Assuming they even still use the Gregorian Calendar, why should they worry about a single day? Personally, I think a future calendar will be simpler not more complex, as they won't worry about keeping the solstices and equinoxes on the same date. Perhaps going back to the Julian calendar, or even completely eliminating leap years all together Nik42 06:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
that would never happen because even slight inaccuracies in time/calendar keeping can cause huge problems over time. over the years, those extra days would build up, and we'd have summer begining on march 12 or something. it has happened in the past, and calendars had to be completely restuctured due to this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.188.178 ( talk • contribs)
That's one of the silliest suggestions I've heard. There is nothing inherently "wintery" about December or "summery" about July or "spring-like" about March. To a Southern Hemisphere person December is associated with summer just as July is in the Northern Hemisphere. On the other hand, it is generally regarded as important that the calendar should coincide with the seasons. It really doesn't matter whether December is winter or summer as long as it coincides with the same season each year. 82.32.72.129 ( talk) 20:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Having February 30 in the article as linked-title makes it format oddly - a line break with excessive spacing above it. The invisible note says it's designed to make it format properly (30 February or February 30, depending on your preference), but I think that's a poor trade-off. I've changed it to "30th of February" - and we'll see what people think. - DavidWBrooks 00:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Isaac Newton's reform would have given a February 30th, rather infrequently. The Article could mention that, and cite http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~belenka/Newton-calendar.pdf. 82.163.24.100 ( talk) 19:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
30/360 day model years imply a Feb 30. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.49.115 ( talk) 04:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
How does a photo of a misprinted calendar that erroneously includes February 30 of any benefit to this article? PacificBoy 23:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Calendar error.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Calendar error.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
March 0 is a hopeless stub, but somehow survived an AFD. How about adding it here, united the stubs might survive also the next AFD. – Be..anyone ( talk) 09:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Merged – Be..anyone ( talk) 22:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Late to the discussion, but it does seem that March 0 is a different topic than February 30. Yeah, the article is unlikely to grow much larger than its stub form, but it's not really suitable as a section of the topic "February 30". Is being a stub, even a "hopeless" stub, a reason for deletion? -- JHunterJ ( talk) 13:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
There's no February 31 article in wikipedia (it redirects to here) - but there is this ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/February_31) in wikimedia commons, which looks like an old wikipedia article and has photos attached. I've never really dealt in wikimeida commons, so I'm not quite sure how/whether to incorporate any of it here. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 17:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I removed Ides of March and Doomsday Algorithm from the "see also", as they don't seem related to this topic at all. Somebody has returned them, so I thought I'd mention it here to see if anybody has any strong opinions one way or the other. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 18:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I had forgotten about this discussion and I removed Ides of March again, only to have it returned as per above. It still strikes me as insufficiently connected (obviously). After all, we don't "see also" to St. Patrick's Day or the Vernal Equinox, which also appear in March. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 19:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm darned if I can find any reference that actually supports anybody ever using February 31 as a placeholder, etc. The only references online seem to be scrapes of wiktionary with no supporting references.
The mention of Feburary 31 currently in the article was added earlier this year by User:JHunterJ, who appeared to add it, with a "citation needed", only because February 31 pointed this article so he thought we needed some reference to February 31.
With all that in mind, I'd like to remove that sentence and have no reference at all to February 31 in the article, just as we have no reference to February 32. I guess I'd leave the article February 31 pointing here because it has to do something, or else we could just kill it.
Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 23:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
There are some choices to be made for how this excellent page will handle non-standard dates that are created only in fiction.
Right now, for example, June 31, which is from a film and nothing else, is a section while May 33rd, also from a film only, is just a "see also" item. December 32, which isn't even a title but is used in a (admittedly wonderful) book, is also a section.
JHunterJ - did you do that on purpose, because of the "33rd" name? Or are these decisions you're still working on as you finalize this page? - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 19:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
An anonymous user from IP 2600:6c44:237f:accb:44d1:46d3:94b9:5f7f added the following comment in a reference tag on 24 November 2020:
Obviously that is not a proper use of reference tags, but the (implicit) request for improvement stands. Cnilep ( talk) 05:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
!!Were there any months with __31 days__ in February?
Yes, until Julius and Augustus Caesar took them away to make July and August 31 days. RickK 04:23, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This is probably a myth, albeit a very old one. There is no historical evidence for the claim that Augustus changed the days in February. Claus T 13:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There is theory/comments going around that February has less days because in the Book of Job 3:1-10, Job cursed the day he was born and asked the Lord to blot out that day, let it not be known. Please provide feedback and any proof/evidence you may find in history. - (unsigned)
This is just something someone made up. It's wrong. Job was speaking figuratively about his personal misery, rather than concretely about calendar reform. The Book of Job was written about 470 B.C. The author would not have been using a Roman calendar. In any case, February was introduced into the Roman calendar by Pompilius (c. 715-673 BC), and moved to its position between January and March in 450 B.C. The length of February was set at 28 days by Julius Caesar in 45 BC - without reference to Job. It is also sometimes said that Augustus shortened February to lengthen the month named after him, August. It's also not true. -- Nunh-huh
The Job thing is a joke. You're right, Nunh-huh, the author of Job would have used the Jewish calendar not the Roman. Jess Cully 00:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
was there February 30 in France after The French Revolution?
Why didn't the Swedes continue carrying out their plan to drop the leap days in February 1704 and 1708? -- Metropolitan90 16:31, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Good question! My guess is that they just forgot. Others think that the Swedes soon realised in 1700 that they were out of step with everyone else in the world, and that they'd be better off going back to the Julian or adopting the Gregorian ASAP (though that doesn't explain why it took them till 1712 to get round to it). Jess Cully 00:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Climate Models often simplify things by having 12 months of 30 days.
Not sure whether this is worth a mention in this article though. crandles 21:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Notice a link on the page goes to a non-existant page, http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/models/GDT/ch23.html Not looked to see if the proper connection would be found. Brian 81.174.167.128 20:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I remember reading something around 1999-2000 that sometime between 3000-3999 AD there will be a February 30, in order to keep the sun and calenar together. If this is so, we need to add it to this page.-- Bedford 04:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think they'll worry about it. Assuming they even still use the Gregorian Calendar, why should they worry about a single day? Personally, I think a future calendar will be simpler not more complex, as they won't worry about keeping the solstices and equinoxes on the same date. Perhaps going back to the Julian calendar, or even completely eliminating leap years all together Nik42 06:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
that would never happen because even slight inaccuracies in time/calendar keeping can cause huge problems over time. over the years, those extra days would build up, and we'd have summer begining on march 12 or something. it has happened in the past, and calendars had to be completely restuctured due to this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.188.178 ( talk • contribs)
That's one of the silliest suggestions I've heard. There is nothing inherently "wintery" about December or "summery" about July or "spring-like" about March. To a Southern Hemisphere person December is associated with summer just as July is in the Northern Hemisphere. On the other hand, it is generally regarded as important that the calendar should coincide with the seasons. It really doesn't matter whether December is winter or summer as long as it coincides with the same season each year. 82.32.72.129 ( talk) 20:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Having February 30 in the article as linked-title makes it format oddly - a line break with excessive spacing above it. The invisible note says it's designed to make it format properly (30 February or February 30, depending on your preference), but I think that's a poor trade-off. I've changed it to "30th of February" - and we'll see what people think. - DavidWBrooks 00:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Isaac Newton's reform would have given a February 30th, rather infrequently. The Article could mention that, and cite http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~belenka/Newton-calendar.pdf. 82.163.24.100 ( talk) 19:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
30/360 day model years imply a Feb 30. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.49.115 ( talk) 04:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
How does a photo of a misprinted calendar that erroneously includes February 30 of any benefit to this article? PacificBoy 23:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Calendar error.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Calendar error.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
March 0 is a hopeless stub, but somehow survived an AFD. How about adding it here, united the stubs might survive also the next AFD. – Be..anyone ( talk) 09:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Merged – Be..anyone ( talk) 22:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Late to the discussion, but it does seem that March 0 is a different topic than February 30. Yeah, the article is unlikely to grow much larger than its stub form, but it's not really suitable as a section of the topic "February 30". Is being a stub, even a "hopeless" stub, a reason for deletion? -- JHunterJ ( talk) 13:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
There's no February 31 article in wikipedia (it redirects to here) - but there is this ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/February_31) in wikimedia commons, which looks like an old wikipedia article and has photos attached. I've never really dealt in wikimeida commons, so I'm not quite sure how/whether to incorporate any of it here. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 17:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I removed Ides of March and Doomsday Algorithm from the "see also", as they don't seem related to this topic at all. Somebody has returned them, so I thought I'd mention it here to see if anybody has any strong opinions one way or the other. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 18:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I had forgotten about this discussion and I removed Ides of March again, only to have it returned as per above. It still strikes me as insufficiently connected (obviously). After all, we don't "see also" to St. Patrick's Day or the Vernal Equinox, which also appear in March. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 19:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm darned if I can find any reference that actually supports anybody ever using February 31 as a placeholder, etc. The only references online seem to be scrapes of wiktionary with no supporting references.
The mention of Feburary 31 currently in the article was added earlier this year by User:JHunterJ, who appeared to add it, with a "citation needed", only because February 31 pointed this article so he thought we needed some reference to February 31.
With all that in mind, I'd like to remove that sentence and have no reference at all to February 31 in the article, just as we have no reference to February 32. I guess I'd leave the article February 31 pointing here because it has to do something, or else we could just kill it.
Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 23:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
There are some choices to be made for how this excellent page will handle non-standard dates that are created only in fiction.
Right now, for example, June 31, which is from a film and nothing else, is a section while May 33rd, also from a film only, is just a "see also" item. December 32, which isn't even a title but is used in a (admittedly wonderful) book, is also a section.
JHunterJ - did you do that on purpose, because of the "33rd" name? Or are these decisions you're still working on as you finalize this page? - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 19:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
An anonymous user from IP 2600:6c44:237f:accb:44d1:46d3:94b9:5f7f added the following comment in a reference tag on 24 November 2020:
Obviously that is not a proper use of reference tags, but the (implicit) request for improvement stands. Cnilep ( talk) 05:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)