Talk:February

message: Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 17:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Time/Assessment|WikiProject Time assessment rating]] comment 

message: The first sentence of the article per 6 February 2011, states that February is the second month in the Julian and Gregorian Calendars. As there are no nations who currently keep the Julian calendar as official calendar, with the exception United Kingdom who are still calculating its fiscal years according to the old calendar (Julian Calendar), it is generally agreed that the year begins with the odd date of 1 January. The idea of January being the first month is an old notion that has prevailed throughout the timespan from the inauguration of the calendar, pertaining to the rise of the Roman Empire - the Julian Calendar - up til the revision of this calendar that concluded in 1581.  This revision stated that the correct interpretation of what is the beginning of the year in the Roman Calendar, is that 1 January is the beginning of the year. This revision is colloquially called the Gregorian Calendar. As the Gregorian Calendar incorrectly is referred to as a new calendar, instead of being understood as the revised Roman Calendar, it is neither correct to say that it is entirely wrong to hold that february is the second month in Julian calendars. The Gregorian Revision restates that 1. January is the beginning, thus it (the Curia of th Roman Catholic Church, the actual authority) hold that the Julian Calendar originally had 1. January as the beginning of the year. But most, if not all, nations, who used the Julian Calendar prior to the Gregorian Calendar revision, reckoned Lady Day - 25. March - as the beginning of the year, alternatively the spring equinox; the first new moon, or full moon from this point (i.e. Easter). In such context February is rather the twelfth member of the year, which should make us recall that September, October, November & December litterarily mean Seventh, Eight, Ninth & Tenth member (of the year). I give it to others to make the actual correction in the article--Xact (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence not exactly right

message: Numa's Februarius contained 29 days (30 in a leap year). Augustus removed one day from February and added it to August, renamed from Sextilis to honor himself.
This probably is not true, it is just a long-standing myth. It's more likely that February was always 28/29 days, it was the last month to be added to the calendar after all. See February 30 for details and source.
--Unsigned
The Roman calendar article also states Numa's Februarius was unlucky enough to end up with the even number of 28 days.
Even numbers were considered unlucky so it wouldn't make sense to steal the 29th day and give it to another 29-day month.
However it wasn't always 28/29 days, since originally the Romans used leap months, not leap days.
--Tharkon (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Augusts removed one day from February 

message: February's flower is the carnation.
February's birthstone is the amethyst.
Is this the case everywhere? If not (I've never heard of it), the places where this is valid should be specified, for example "In the United States, February's flower is the carnation.". Thanks. Jørgen 20:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had always heard the birthstone of the Aquarius zodiac sign was amethyst. --黒雲 user:Qaddosh 01:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flowers and stones 

message: This change was made by Numa Pompilius about 700 BC in order to bring the calendar in line with a standard lunar year.
Rome didn't exist in 700 BC.
--Unsigned
According to legend, the first king of Rome was Romulus, who founded the city in 753 BC upon the Palatine Hill.
Source: King of Rome
The Roman Kingdom was founded in 753 BC.
The Roman Republic in 509 BC, and the Roman Empire in 27 BC.
That is probably what confused you.
--Tharkon (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman in 700 BC 

message: It is also the only month of the calendar that once every six years and twice every 11 years, will have only four full 7-day weeks.
It has four full 7-day weeks most of the time. 
The article then goes on to pseudo-clarify:
 Where the first day of the month starts on a Monday and the last day ends on a Sunday, this was observed in 2010
But I thought the usual 7-day week started on Sunday and ended on Saturday? That's how all my calendars ever printed it, anyway. 203.217.22.128 (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Traditionally, yes, the week starts on Sunday but some follow the idea that it starts on Monday.  The statement is incorrectly worded.  If this occurs once every six years, then it'll occur eleven times in sixty-six years.  If it occurs twice every eleven years, then it'll occur twelve times in sixty-six years.  Taken literally it contradicts itself.  It should say that it occurs at intervals of six then eleven then eleven years with the pattern repeating until a skipped leap year (1800, 1900, 2100, etc.) gets in the way.  The paragraph would need a big clean up but is it really even worth it?  Is there really any use in keeping this piece of trivia?  Just delete it. JIMp talk·cont 17:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Full 7-day weeks" 

message: /ˈfɛbuːˌɛri/ (FEB-oo-ERR-ee) is another common pronunciation.  Kostaki mou (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Within the period from 2000 to 2399, there are exactly 44 years for which February needs exactly 4 Sun–Sat rows: 2009, 2015, 2026, 2037, 2043, 2054, 2065, 2071, 2082, 2093, 2099, 2105, 2111, 2122, 2133, 2139, 2150, 2161, 2167, 2178, 2189, 2195, 2201, 2207, 2218, 2229, 2235, 2246, 2257, 2263, 2274, 2285, 2291, 2303, 2314, 2325, 2331, 2342, 2353, 2359, 2370, 2381, 2387, and 2398. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years with 4-row February 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on February. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102060918/http://www.dobrova-polhovgradec.si/doc/priponke/koledar%20prir%2007%20zadnji.pdf to http://www.dobrova-polhovgradec.si/doc/priponke/koledar%20prir%2007%20zadnji.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160129072305/http://www.drukpa.com/announcements/266-chotrul-duchen-prayer-2015 to http://www.drukpa.com/announcements/266-chotrul-duchen-prayer-2015
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: See Talk:List_of_month-long_observances#Keeping_this_article_and_the_various_articles_on_months_in_sync. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open RfC related to this article 

message: The rule about leap years is incomplete. According to https://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/leap_years, the complete rule should be:
-- '
According to the Gregorian calendar, which is the civil calendar in use today, years evenly divisible by 4 are leap years, with the exception of centurial years that are not evenly divisible by 400. Therefore, the years 1700, 1800, 1900 and 2100 are not leap years, but 1600, 2000, and 2400 are leap years.
' --
The numbers 100 and 400 are not mentioned anywhere in this article, giving the impression that the simple "divisible by four" leap year rule is complete ...but it's not. The exceptions to make the calendar year line up more exactly with the astronomical year are sometimes called "skipped" leap years. 73.68.110.155 (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  days in February - leap years sometimes skipped