From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Time (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment[edit]

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)

First sentence not exactly right[edit]

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)


Three times in history a February 30 did occur.

When was that? What was/were the reason(s) for it? D.D. 21:21 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

See February 30. --ugen64

Augusts removed one day from February[edit]

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.


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)

Flowers and stones[edit]

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)

i thought that the birthstone of february was ruby?? hanabi-sama 23:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I had always heard the birthstone of the Aquarius zodiac sign was amethyst. --黒雲 user:Qaddosh 01:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Roman in 700 BC[edit]

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.


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)

Recent edit[edit]

Regarding this diff, all I have to say is "Duh! Everybody knows it's not "Poonsday..." It's "Pwnsday!""


Under the Events in February section there was National "Shake Your Booty" month. If this is true, please provide a source. --Cory Kohn 01:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is in fact, a actual thing. my sources are this - 27k. and if you still don't beleive me, type in National Shake Your Booty Month in the Google toolbar. I'm going to add that in the

article because it is actually real. it's been celebrated ever since 1997.

I added it.

February 31[edit]

Why is February 31 redirected to February? And also in April, June, September, and November? Those months don't even have 31 days anyway. Whoever made those redirects, those shall be erased and deleted., 03:40 3 March 2007 (UTC)

National Days[edit]

Removed from article:

  • National Bird-Feeding Month
  • National Hot Breakfast Month

As the nation in which they occur is not specified.


The intro needs to be checked for clarity. Specifically the paragraph beginning with "Having only 28 days in common years...". To me it seems like a useless fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shicoco (talkcontribs) 22:50, 29 October 2008

"Full 7-day weeks"[edit]

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. (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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)


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

I know a lot of people that say FEBBREE mostly in London and the South East (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(harrumphs crustily) Some people pronounce it "FEB-you-erry" in the same way that some people pronounce nuclear "nook-you-ler" Captain Pedant (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Years with 4-row February[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)