Talk:Mercedonius

message: :Mercedonius was once a character in the Adventure People.
was added to Mercedonius by 201.236.200.84. This is apparently vandalism because all of his contributions to date have been "Adventure People" characters such as Monday Day, July Month, etc.— Joe Kress 02:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Character in Adventure People

message: A long time ago I tried to resolve this issue by proposing to insert a statement recognising that in the past some scholars, such as Ideler and de Sanctis, thought that the Intercalary month was 27 or 28 days long, but the current consensus is that it was fixed at 27 days.  That is a completely accurate statement of fact.  It doesn't require you to agree that it was fixed at 27 days.  It only requires you to agree that the current consensus is that it was fixed at 27 days, which is a different issue.  
If you could agree to that, then I can get on with my life, and you can start researching and publishing and persuading the world of classical scholarship that Mommsen and Michels and Samuel and Brind'Amour and Hannah and all the others who regard the fixed 27 day model as the explanation best fitting the facts are wrong.  When you've succeeded in doing that then we can revisit the issue. 
If, on the other hand, you are still hell-bent on carrying on with this stupid argument, then the least you can do is to:
:::::STOP EDITING THIS OR ANY OTHER PAGE AND REPLY HERE.
--Chris Bennett (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: STOP EDITING THIS OR ANY OTHER PAGE AND REPLY HERE.
--Chris Bennett (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution of Length of Mercedonius Issue 

message: I'm sticking a  template on this page because the article now reads almost more like a scholarly polemic than a general-use encyclopedia article. The first paragraph in particular doesn't do what a lede should. It's great that there is an overview of the literature included, but this should be moved out of the first paragraph (preferably into its own section), while the lede should be boiled down into a more direct, spit-it-out account. To give one example, the very first sentence begins by saying that mensis intercalaris was never called Mercedonius (the title of the article...), which will confuse many readers from the very start. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone

message: Hi, is there any information in the ancient authors to confirm that Mercedonius was considered a mensis cavus and thus had three days between the kalends and the nones, then seven days between the nones and the ides, and then counting down starting from the 16th or the 15th before the kalends of March? For that matter, in intercalary years, would the day after the ides of February be the 11th before the intercalary kalends?  Thanks in advance. --Wtrmute (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That term (cavus) is not found in the index to "The Calendar of the Roman Republic" by Agnes Kirsopp Michels, nor in appendix I, which assembles all relevant and useful quotes from ancient authors on pre-45 B.C. intercalation.  According to Michels, mensis intercalarius (the more official name) was a month of 27 days inserted after February 23rd or 24th.  According to her fold-out chart at the back of the book, the intercalary month had its Nones in the 5th and Ides on the 13th.  If in any month the Nones and Ides weren't 8 days apart, that would have broken the nundinal cycle... AnonMoos (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nones and Ides of Intercalaris? 

message: This edit established the usage of this article as BC/AD. Kindly maintain it consistently pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 02:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:ERA]]