Talk:February 29

message: , : can you guys resolve your differences here on the article talk page, please, not by fighting it out in main space. You are both involved in an edit war and at or near WP:3RR violations. Repeated reversion and counter-reversion is just going to get both suspended. Try to find common ground that recognises that 29 Feb (like 1 Jan) is unique and the general rules that apply to a boringly normal day like, picked at random, 29 July, need to be modified slightly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't be making any more changes/reversions. I would simply direct you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Template where the layout of the DOY pages has been discussed and agreed upon. Kiwipete (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year/Template is the format agreed by the project.  If  wants to propose different sections, s/he needs to figure out a much less disruptive approach which includes a discussion with the project members on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Template.  Toddst1 (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A possible solution might be for Miklcct to put the material in the body of the article rather than trying to force it into an unreceptive template. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The template clearly doesn't have the section for me to put the appropriate encyclopedic material into it, and there isn't a more appropriate article to put these materials because they are specific to this date. If the article leap day is not a redirect but instead a general overview in multiple calendar systems, these contents can be put there. Also the same can be applied to days which are of significant importance (such as April 1 used as the beginning of financial year in most countries). Therefore, there is no choice but to break templates to put the contents into it. --Miklcct (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the actual content that  added, I would suggest that the best place for it is the Legal age article itself. Kiwipete (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Miklcct, looking at this from the outside, one thing that seems really obvious is that you don't have, and won't get, consensus for the exact change you want to make in exactly the way you want to make it. So your best way forward now is to think about results rather than means, to think laterally about how to find another way to deliver your intent, that will secure consensus. Best wishes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Yes, there is a choice, one you're not hearing. Don't add it. No consensus for it.  Toddst1 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laws affecting 29 February: bold, revert, DISCUSS 

message: Dinah Shore was born Feb 29, 1916, she should be included in the Births section. 24.206.70.41 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You can an the entry yourself, as long as you have a reliable source. However, I see from her page that there is at least one source which states that she was born on 1 March. Kiwipete (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinah Shore 

message: Some time ago, I posted (previous archive):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:February_29/Archive_1&action=dtsubscribe&commentname=h-WHPratt-2009-04-23T16%3A14%3A00.000Z§ion=Three+paydays+in+February%3F
I note that some Social Secutiry recipients got an early "extra" payment due to there being five Thursdays in February 2024. What are the odds? Check the link. WHPratt (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five WhateverDays in any February