Talk:February 29/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

("1915 - Child labor: In South Carolina ...") Was 1915 a Leap Year for some reason I can't fathom?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.140.61 (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ja Rule's b/day is given on February 28 as well as 29. Possibly a Leap Day confusion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.140.61 (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2004 (UTC)[reply]

[1] --mav — Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 28 February 2004

someone wrote: :Not true. February 29 is not added in leap years. February 24 is.

Was that someone thinking of the Roman or Julian calendar? February 24 occurs every year in the Gregorian calendar, so far as I know. --MichaelTinkler — Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 8 November 2001

No, in both the Roman, the Julian and the Gregorian calendar, February 24 is the added day. Of course February 24 exists in non-leap years also, but it is a different day. The day called "Feb. 24" in non-leap years is actually "Feb. 25" in leap years, and the non-leap year "Feb 28" is leap year "Feb 29". The origins go back to the Roman period -- Feb 24 is the bissextile day -- I think talk:leap year explains it. -- SJK — Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 8 November 2001

While it's historically true that February 24 was the "added" leap day up until 1996, the European Union, drawing upon its ineffable wisdom, has declared that February 29 would be the leap day starting in the year 2000. Best to finesse it with 'occurs'. -- Someone else 23:51 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)
The added day being February 24th makes no sense at all. What possible rational basis can this claim have? The 24th of February is the 24th of February. How can the 25th of February in a leap year be "really" the 24th? The days of a month are counted from the beginning to the end - 1st, 2nd, 3rd ... 23rd, 24th, 25th, ... and so on. What, then, is the "real" date of what we call February 24? The 24½th? This sort of weirdness needs a lot more explanation than just the bare stating of a supposed fact. I suspect some sort of stupid hoax here. Koro Neil (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So my understanding, which may be flawed, is the following: the Romans counted dates backward from the next reference date, instead of forward from the first of the month. So for instance, instead of saying 'the 27th of February' as we do, they would say 'three days before the first of March'. And what they did during leap years is count as follows: 'eight days before the first of March, seven days before the first of March, six days before the first of March, six days before the first of March again, five days before the first of March…'. So, to translate it into modern terminology, they labeled two consecutive days as both the 24th of February. AJD (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under births, one of the years in 1763. But 1763 is not a leap year. What is the correct year? Eric119 23:02 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

It looks like Ann Lee's dates are Feb 29, 1736 - Sept 8, 1784, so someone just flipped two digits. Fixed now. -- Someone else 23:25 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is wrong -- it says "with one exception", but actually there are two exceptions to the simple rule (one slightly arcane xception that century years are excluded, and one even more arcane exception that quatracentenary years are included). I tried to fix this earlier, but someone reverted my changes; I had done quite a rewrite as an attempt. So rather than try again, I'll just mention the mistake here, and hope someone else will fix it this time, and maybe it will last :) Pagan 09:53, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

>>>If you can divide the century by 400 and get a whole number, it's a leap year (leap century). So 2000 was a leap year. 2100, 2200 and 2300 are not. Pity the poor slob born on Feb-29, 2096. He won't have a birthday for 8 years! BTW. The leap-century math was kinda ignored by MicroSoft when they wrote Excel. Look on "The Leap Year Day Honor Roll" webpage and you'll get all the gory details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2007

There is a tradition that women may make a proposal of marriage to men only on February 29

"to men only"? What if they are bissextile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainspotter (talk • contribs) 14:01, 21 February 2004 (UTC)[reply]

February 29th is Superman's Birthday. Seriously! - Sparky 22:22, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Have you heard the joke that February 29 is Job's birthday? When he said 'Let the day perish wherein I was born', God didn't grant his request entirely but made a concession to him by obliterating the day three years in four. Jess Cully 10:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 29th NOT the definition of a leap year![edit]

See Soviet revolutionary calendar or February 30. In odd circumstances there has been a Feb 29th outside of a leap year. Shouldn't this sentence bee removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.78.5 (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2004

Feb 29th NOT the definition of a leap day, either![edit]

When I click the link to leap day at Thai lunar calendar, I wind up here; so, until someone fixes it, I'm removing the link! Pawyilee (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second this request. February 29th isn't the same as "Leap Day" in many countries using the Gregorian Calendar either. -- Martcx (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, according to me leap day is feb 24th. Why, pls read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_24 B1johnlarsen (talk) 10:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question re Feb 29.[edit]

Is it better that Feb 29 falls:

  • in the middle of the year, or
  • at the end of the year?

When March was the first Month, and December the 10th month, Feb 29 did indeed fall at the end of the year.

Syd1435 05:58, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

Agree that the end of the year is the best place for leap day. Let's have December 32 in leap years and extend the Christmas-New Year festivities. Jess Cully 10:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People (Northern Hemisphere)have argued -- sometimes seriously -- along these lines: You know how bad the weather is in February? Why have an extra day then? Why not add July 32 and have an extra day of good weather? WHPratt (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)WHPratt[reply]

The point of Leap Day being inserted at the end of February begs the question "why February?" Of course the reason is as explained above (in the Roman Calendar it was the last month of the year. This may seem a minor point, but I think it should be mentioned on the main page, which is locked. SGW1009 17:49, 14 January, 2009 (UTC)

Under English law, up until 1750, the 25th of March was the start of the year. The Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 (24 Geo 2 c.23) decreed that 1751 would end on 31 December and 1752 would begin on 1st January; that the 2nd September 1752 would be followed by 14th September 1752; that an ordinary year had 365 days and a leap year had 366 days; that every four hundredth year starting at 2000 would be a leap year; that otherwise every hundredth year starting at 1800 would not be a leap year; otherwise every fourth year was a leap year as had been the case under the old (Julian) calendar. The act is explicit about whether 1800, 1900, 2000, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400 and 2800 are or are not leap years. This act also set the rules for calculating Easter until at least 8500! It might help if this arcane method of implementing the new calendar was explained. Also, because this Act was passed before American Independence, I assume it would also apply in the USA, as well as any British Commonwealth country, together with any associated Common Law about how 29th February is treated. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting an extra day?[edit]

Article says: An English law of 1256 decrees that in leap years the leap day and the day before are to be reckoned as one day for the purpose of calculating when a full year has passed; thus, in England and Wales a person born on February 29 legally reaches the age of 18 or 21 on February 28 of the relevant year. In the European Union, February 29 only officially became the leap day in 2000.

If the law really does say that, that would also mean that someone born on February 28 on a non-leap year isn't 18 until February 29 if that is a leap year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random832 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

No, if you are born in the middle of April 2nd, you become 18 at the beginning of April 2nd. 12 AM February 28 is the beginning of the "day" that includes February 28 and February 29. DenisMoskowitz 15:45, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

In "The Pirates of Penzance" - an Operetta by Gilbert and Sullivan: Frederic encounters Ruth and the Pirate King. They inform him that his apprenticeship was worded so as to bind him to them until his twenty-first birthday – and, because that birthday happens to be on the extra day of Leap Year (February 29), that means that technically only five birthdays have passed ("When you had left our pirate fold"). Frederic is convinced that he must rejoin the pirates by this logic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirates_of_Penzance) Does the above law prove Gilbert & Sullivan wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GMCW (talk • contribs) 13:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not necessarily. English laws are drafted without using the term "birthday", instead always saying 'when a person has reached the age of' X years. Using 'birthday' leaves things open to the Gilbert & Sullivan interpretation. Jess Cully 13:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting this - it actually looks like, if this is how the law is worded, someone born on February 29th would reach the age of 1816 on February 28th of a leap year. —Random832 19:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well here's one practical test for English or British law. In 1974 there was a general election held on February 28, and the voting age was 18. So were people born on Feburary 29 1956 eligible or not? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked, and I can't find anything that says it one way or the other. The issue must have arisen, can anyone born on 29 Feb 1956 in the UK enlighten us? Incidentally, if the voting age is 16 the problem will never occur as the year in question (when the person born on Feb 29 turns 16) will always be a leap year as well, except for the century years not divisible by 400. Walshie79 (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He'd have to wait for his 88th birthday [correction: 88th year] to have seen 21 of them: as 1900 wasn't a leap year, he missed having a birthday celebration in that year as well as in 1896 and 1904, thus going eight full years between parties. Didn't some publication declare Frederic liberated on his 84th birthday [correction: in his 84th year] and suffer a correction from some prototypical nerd out there? WHPratt (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019 corrections WHPratt (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Facts[edit]

The article states that "a century year is not a leap year unless ... it leaves a remainder of 200 or 600 when divided by 900. Note that years divisible by 4000 will currently not be leap years, despite being divisble by 400." I havent read about this anywhere and it sound to me like nonsense. Unless someone can confirm the facts i will delete them. --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 05:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Note that years divisible by 4000 will currently not be leap years, despite being divisble by 400. This is patently false. No mention of a longer intercalation period is mentioned in the Papal Bull establishing the Gregorian calendar. No changes have been made since then. I am going to change the article to state that such an idea has been proposed, but not put into action (for among other reasons, it's not immediately clear who has the authority to do so). 68.227.80.79 23:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the United Nations or the International Astronomical Union. Jess Cully 15:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The divisible by 4000 discussion is mildly interesting, but one we'll have to pick up in roughly 1,993 years. If we're still not sure then, we'll have to get back on it around CE 7995. Tzittnan 20:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birth year query[edit]

1900 - Giorgos Seferis, Greek poet and Nobel laureate (d. 1971)—how so, since 1900 wasn't a leap year? Was Greece still following the Julian Calendar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Copey 2 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 22 May 2006

  • Yes, it was. Greece adopted the Gregorian Calendar in 1917. Jess Cully 13:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leap day is more likely to fall on a Monday than on a Sunday[edit]

The article says "a leap day is more likely to fall on a Monday than on a Sunday." Surely this can't be true, can it? Pelago 11:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is correct. I didn't believe it either, so I checked!

400 years contain 97 leap days. This is a total of 400*365+97 days, which is 146097 days, which is exactly 20871 weeks. Therefore 29th February is the same day of the week (Tuesday, in fact) in all years divisible by 400. So the 97 leap-days within each 400-year cycle cannot be equally spread over the days of the week. In fact there are 13 Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, 14 Fridays and Saturdays, and 15 Mondays and Wednesdays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.15.226 (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2007

I was thinking the very same after reading that paragraph. I think it would be great to update that para in the main text with a bit of your calculation (not to get too geeky, perhaps just the dayofweek counts) to quell the curiosity of people like me --Mortice 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised this, taken out some of the 'you might expect' info and % data and replaced with the counts of days which I think is much more interesting from a browsing point of view --Mortice 20:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I had difficulty believing this, and so checked it out empirically. I first used Visual Basic 6, then tested in in MS Excel 2003. Same results. Here's the latter as an Excel macro: 

   Sub LeapDays()
   Dim ic As Integer, iy As Integer, indx As Integer
   Dim iyFirst As Integer, iyLast As Integer
   Dim WeekDayOfFeb29(7)As Integer
   
   For ic = 15 To 24 'century span
       
       'Zero this out each time through
       For indx = 1 To 7
           WeekDayOfFeb29(indx) = 0
       Next indx
           
       'Year span
       iyFirst = ic * 100 + 1 'start year
       iyLast = iyFirst + 399 'end year
       
       'Check each leap year
       For iy = iyFirst To iyLast
           'Tally up day of week
           'Weekday function returns 1(Sun) to 7(Sat)
           If IsLeap(iy) Then
               indx = Weekday("February 29," & Str$(iy))
               WeekDayOfFeb29(indx) = WeekDayOfFeb29(indx) + 1
           End If
       Next iy
           
       'Output the counts
       Debug.Print "From A.D."; iyFirst; "to"; iyLast; ": ";
       For indx = 1 To 7
           Debug.Print WeekdayName(indx); "="; WeekDayOfFeb29(indx); "  ";
       Next indx
       Debug.Print ""
   
   Next ic
   Stop
   End Sub
   
   Private Function IsLeap(ByVal TheYear As Integer) As Boolean
   IsLeap = DateDiff("d", "February 28," & Str$(TheYear), "March 1," & Str$(TheYear)) > 1
   End Function

The results:

From A.D. 1501 to 1900 : Sunday= 13 Monday= 15 Tuesday= 13 Wednesday= 15 Thursday= 13 Friday= 14 Saturday= 14
From A.D. 1601 to 2000 : Sunday= 13 Monday= 15 Tuesday= 13 Wednesday= 15 Thursday= 13 Friday= 14 Saturday= 14
From A.D. 1701 to 2100 : Sunday= 13 Monday= 15 Tuesday= 13 Wednesday= 15 Thursday= 13 Friday= 14 Saturday= 14
From A.D. 1801 to 2200 : Sunday= 13 Monday= 15 Tuesday= 13 Wednesday= 15 Thursday= 13 Friday= 14 Saturday= 14
From A.D. 1901 to 2300 : Sunday= 13 Monday= 15 Tuesday= 13 Wednesday= 15 Thursday= 13 Friday= 14 Saturday= 14
From A.D. 2001 to 2400 : Sunday= 13 Monday= 15 Tuesday= 13 Wednesday= 15 Thursday= 13 Friday= 14 Saturday= 14
From A.D. 2101 to 2500 : Sunday= 13 Monday= 15 Tuesday= 13 Wednesday= 15 Thursday= 13 Friday= 14 Saturday= 14
From A.D. 2201 to 2600 : Sunday= 13 Monday= 15 Tuesday= 13 Wednesday= 15 Thursday= 13 Friday= 14 Saturday= 14
From A.D. 2301 to 2700 : Sunday= 13 Monday= 15 Tuesday= 13 Wednesday= 15 Thursday= 13 Friday= 14 Saturday= 14
From A.D. 2401 to 2800 : Sunday= 13 Monday= 15 Tuesday= 13 Wednesday= 15 Thursday= 13 Friday= 14 Saturday= 14

QED. It should be noted that Microsoft's formulas apply the Gregorian calendar from Jan 1, 100 through Dec 31, 9999, although it's really meaningless before 1752. WHPratt (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)WHPratt Fixed formatting.WHPratt (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women proposing?[edit]

The paragraph on Women proposing on the leap day or year is quaint, but it is presented as having the force of law in some juristdiction. Could we get more specific info on when and where this "tradition" was in practice, with maybe even an example or two? -- 75.26.2.209 17:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lookup "Sadie Hawkins Day". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2006

Can we have a reference inserted for this? In 1288 the Scottish parliament legislated that any woman could propose in Leap Year. (You know, date, title, section, paragraph, stuff like that!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.53.163 (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2007

for some reason, the relevant information has been deleted in its entirety without discussion. Will add stub info.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More info is at Leap year#Folk traditions. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Rolland[edit]

Is she really considered a notable death because she was only a school shooting victim, which is not notable to the world, even if it did made major headlines in local areas? The Legendary Ranger 22:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the bit about the shooting from events. Fabricationary 22:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual date?[edit]

Is February 29 really an unusual date?? --218.186.9.3 09:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It only comes once every 1461 days. You '365ers' aren't too quick, are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2007
awww, don't be mad just cause you can only celebrate your bday once every four years!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.203.175.175 (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2007

Birth of Richard Ramirez[edit]

According to the births on this page, "1960 - Richard Ramirez, American serial killer", however according to the page for Richard Ramirez, he was born February 28, 1960 - this is also cited (but the cited link requires registration. Looks like quite an infamous person over in the US, so can anyone confirm one date over the other? --Woodgreener 15:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Wednesday[edit]

Has Ash Wednesday ever fallen on February 29th? If not, which leap year which will have February 29 on a Wednesday will have Ash Wednesday on February 29? 69.110.178.92,04:10 2 March 2007 (UTC)

feb 29 not 60th AND 61st day[edit]

its just the 60th, and obviously only happens on a leap year, theres been a mistake at the top of the page and its uneditable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.25.160 (talk • contribs)

I have fixed the error, which is in a template, by removing the template. I have written to the template's last edditor to advise of the problem. --Drappel 16:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bissextile[edit]

Do any countries use this rule as a basis for legal time periods, i.e. count a February 28th birthday in a leap year as the 27th in a common year, so on back to the 25th (24th)? —Random832 19:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdays suggestion[edit]

May I suggest that Ms. Lydia Dunn, DBE to be added under the Birthdays section? She played an important role in politics of Hong Kong in the 80s to early 90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.184.151 (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see Gary The Retard, born February 29th, 1952 added to this list as well. Eschuk (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When this day falls in opening[edit]

Today I added the following sentence to the opening: 'In general, in even decades (1980s, 2000s, etc) February 29 occurs in the 0, 4 and 8 years, and in odd decades (1990s, 2010s, etc) February 29 occurs in the 2 and 6 years. The exception to this is years that are divisible by 100 but not by 400 (1900, 2100), in which case February 29 does not occur.'

User:Grouf soon reverted my edit saying it was confusing. I'm forced to agree, but still I think there should be an explanation of the years when February 29 occurs. --Philip Stevens (talk) 15:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is explained in the first sentence: ...occurs only every four years, in years evenly divisible by 4...with the exception of century years not divisible by 400... That is simple and straight-forward, anything more then that causes confusion. Grouf (talk • contribs) 15:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late as Leap Day is feb. 24th. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_24 B1johnlarsen (talk) 10:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Leap Day[edit]

Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 21:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notability.[edit]

Based on the hard line on notability criteria involving day-of-the-year articles, this following events should probably not be in this article. I am curious to know why these should remain in the article. I am trying to get a better gauge of what is and what is not notable here. Kingturtle (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in Birthday listing[edit]

The listing of David Beattie, born Feb 29 1924, has a mis-spelling of "Governor-General"


Why is it called "LEAP"?[edit]

This question must be answered on this page. Why is it called "LEAP"?

Its name arises from the way the day of the week of a fixed day of the year behaves. Let's look at July 4 as an example. Let's start out with July 4, 2000, which is a Tuesday. What is July 4, 2001?? The answer is a Wednesday. July 4, 2002 is a Thursday and July 4, 2003 is a Friday. How about July 4, 2004?? The pattern suggests it should be a Saturday, but it is a Sunday because of 2004's extra day. Thus, the date has "leapt over" Saturday. Georgia guy (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think, not really so. It is because, on that day, "the Golden Letter leapeth". That is, of course, connected with what you say. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excel Day Count[edit]

The effect of the "included" 1900-02-29 on Excel dating (also Delphi) is alluded to in another part of the discussion, without adequate reference. I consider it worth mentioning, briefly but with carefully-ascertained facts, in the main article. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divisible by 900[edit]

Discussion contains a mention of replacing the "divisible by 400" rule with a "divide by 900, remainder 200 or 600" rule. That belongs, I believe, to the Soviet calendar of about 1930, and to the Greek Orthodox Church. I suggest that, if those can be confirmed, a brief statement in the main Article would be appropriate. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three paydays in February?[edit]

Someone may find this interesting enough to work it into the article.

How often does February 29 occur on a Friday? Using a variation on a method that I described earlier on this page . . . 

    Private Sub Feb29Fri()
    
        For iy = 1800 To 2100
            If IsLeap(iy) Then
                If WeekDay("February 29," & Str$(iy)) = vbFriday Then
                    Debug.Print Format$("February 29," & Str$(iy), "Long Date")
                End If
            End If
        Next iy
    
    End Sub
    
    Private Function IsLeap(ByVal TheYear As Integer)
        IsLeap = DateDiff("d", "February 28," & Str$(TheYear), "March 1," & Str$(TheYear)) > 1
    End Function
    
    

    Friday, February 29, 1828
    Friday, February 29, 1856
    Friday, February 29, 1884
    Friday, February 29, 1924
    Friday, February 29, 1952
    Friday, February 29, 1980
    Friday, February 29, 2008
    Friday, February 29, 2036
    Friday, February 29, 2064
    Friday, February 29, 2092

It should occur once every 28 years. (The long gap between 1884 and 1924 has to do with 1900 not being a leap year.)

Only in these particular months does February have five Fridays. Now, assuming that workers are paid on alternate Fridays, only in these years can a worker receive three paychecks in February (on the 1st, 15th and 29th).

However, roughly half the employers will be out of step with the other half, and these will have paydays on the 8th and 22nd. Therefore, a typical worker has only a one-in-56 chance of a three-payday February in his working life. WHPratt (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not that interesting. And your assumption that workers are paid on alternate Fridays is heavily flawed. None of the jobs I've ever held have paid on Fridays. Many employers pay semi-monthly instead of biweekly; many employers pay weekly instead of biweekly, at least to certain categories of employees. Still others pay on a monthly basis. I'm writing this in 2012 and get paid on Wednesdays, which means that for me this is a three-payday month.12.186.80.1 (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn’t meant to illuminate anything about workers and their pay, but just to put a human face on the quirky statistic, to show how rare an event is five of any particular weekday in February. It could apply to other situations, e.g., how often does a church have to prepare for five Sundays in February.WHPratt (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotection review[edit]

  • 12:34, 22 February 2008 Steel (talk | contribs) protected February 29 ‎ (Socking anon [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 12:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)))
  • 14:20, 6 April 2008 Steel (talk | contribs) protected February 29 ‎ (Vandalism and socking anon [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
  • 16:01, 15 June 2008 Wizardman (talk | contribs) changed protection level for "February 29" ‎ (No need to move. using TW [move=sysop])
  • 22:12, 15 June 2008 Wizardman (talk | contribs) changed protection level for "February 29" ‎ (Re-semiprotecting after finding out why it was originally semi'd. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])

The reason seems to have been edits like this. Similar nonsense was happening at the February 24 article during the same period.

After over 18 months, I'd like to review this to see if it's still necessary. As well as welcoming comments from regular editors I've contacted Steel, the protecting admin. --TS 07:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information[edit]

"In England and Wales a person born on February 29 legally reaches the age of 18 or 21 on February 28 of the relevant year(though 18 year-olds can't buy tobacco products – or a 21 year old can't buy alcohol – until March 1)"

Citation has been required for the above statement for months now; also age to purchase alcohol in the UK is 18... Someone should delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.9.53 (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the 24 hour February 29th rotation does[edit]

The story of the current cycle began on Mar 1st 2008 when daily rotation and orbital motion started in sync,as the orbital cycle of the Earth around the Sun is 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes,the orbital cycle ended at roughly 6 AM Mar 1st 2009 whereupon a new orbital cycle of 365 1/4 days began and ended at 12 noon Mar 1st 2010,As there are 365 days and rotations between Mar 1st and Feb 28th each year,the orbital cycle drifts ahead through Mar 1st each non-leap year in increments of 6 hours so that by Mar 1st 2011,the orbital cycle was ahead by a full 18 hours in ending at 6 PM Mar 1st 2011.At the end of Mar 1st 2012 the orbital cycle is ahead by almost a full 24 hours so that the extra 24 hours of rotation on February 29th returns the daily and orbital cycles back into sync whereupon the orbital cycle ends the next year at 6 AM Mar 1st 2013.To the nearest rotation,the correspondence between 1461 days and 4 years with 1461 rotations and 4 orbital circuits is the most familiar in all science through the leap day correction of February 29th,a small but dominant group of people have managed to propose 1465 rotations in 4 orbital circuits thereby disturbing what is a jewel of human timekeeping and the dynamics from which it came.Gkell1 (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that the last sub-sentence (beginning "a small but dominant") makes sense, it seems to deal with the difference between the mean solar day and the sidereal day or stellar day. However, it has nothing to do with this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The leading article for an extra day at the end of 4 years is exceptionally weak.The first written account of the need for an extra day to keep the number of days in line with seasonal events is based on the fact that if the ancients stayed with a system of a continuous 365 days they would have found events such as the flooding of the Nile drifting through the seasons.They watched for the seasonal return of the star Sirius to the same spot in the sky and noticed that it returns to the same spot after every 1461 days so they tacked on an extra day after the 4 years of 365 days - "But that these feast days shall be celebrated in definite seasons for them to keep for ever, and after the plan of the heaven established on this day and that the case shall not occur, that all the Egyptian festivals, now celebrated in winter, shall not be celebrated some time or other in summer, on account of the precession of the rising of the Divine Sothis [Sirius] by one day in the course of 4 years, and other festivals celebrated in the summer, in this country, shall not be celebrated in winter, as has occasionally occurred in past times, therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day as feast of Benevolent Gods [the pharaoh and family] be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the New Year, whereby all men shall learn, that what was a little defective in the order as regards the seasons and the year, as also the opinions which are contained in the rules of the learned on the heavenly orbits, are now corrected and improved" Canopus Decree

The point is that the Egyptians began with 1461 days corresponding to 4 years whereas the description in the main article tries to begin with 365 1/4 days and work things out from there,in this case the ease of description for Feb 29th by explaining how the Egyptians approached it requires an alteration in the main article insofar as the reduction of 1461 days in 4 years to 365 1/4 days in 1 years distracts from the reasoning which formats the calendar as 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days using only the 1461 day value in tandem with the appearance of Sirius to the same point in the sky.Gkell1 (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning with the article being weak, I whole-heatedly agree. But I don't feel this page is where the in depth article belongs. 365 pages of similar formatting and 1 page breaking format completely just doesn't "feel" right. Something makes me uncomfortable about that personally. The paradox of time itself would certainly make for an extensive article surrounding leap days. I feel that for this page, a simple, brief explanation fits into the DOY format much better.
I also think that for the vast majority of folks, simple and brief is much better than the mind-numbing text that all too often accompanies articles related to time differential and celestial mechanics. I myself am deeply into orbital periods, zeniths, solar time v. terrestrial time, the equation of time, julian conversian, obliquity, inclination, etc, etc. Gotta know all that stuff to be reasonably adept at what goes on off planet and for building precision simulations. For me, an in depth article would be awesome. But not here. There's no way we could just stop with the Egyptions. Ken Tholke (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation the Egyptians give in the Canopus Decree for an extra day is almost self-explanatory in terms of references used and why they found it necessary to institute the additional day but from a standpoint of 1461 days in 4 years and this perspective should take precedence over the article that starts with 365 1/4 days in a year as that is merely extraneous to the original observation.The original approach by the Egyptians is more concise and easier for the student or an interested adult to understand and especially the dramatic event of the flooding of the Nile and the seasonal appearance of Sirius. Immediately launching into the Gregorian correction is unhelpful and that space could be given to the broad issue of why the extra day prevents the drift of seasonal events,needless to say,and despite appearance,it is a large undertaking to straighten out the historical and technical details,at least to make it interesting and enjoyable for the student. Gkell1 (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is just one of a 366-article series that constitutes a kind of day-book for the Gregorian calendar. It's hardly the "leading article for an extra day at the end of 4 years" -- Leap year, Gregorian calendar or Julian calendar are surely more appropriate. But IMO issues about the Canopic reform of the Egyptian calendar are best discussed in the Canopus Decree article.
A couple of points of detail: The Canopic reform was not really an Egyptian reform. It was a reform of the Egyptian calendar imposed by Egypt's Greek rulers, the Ptolemies, based on Greek astronomical knowledge, known since Eudoxus and Cleostratus. Also, the description of the leap day as an accumulation of quarter days over four years is very clearly spelled out in Macrobius' description of the Julian reform, so this is how the Romans understood it, and is surely how Sosigenes explained it to them. --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement for an extra day after 4 consecutive periods of 365 days is bound to the observation that Sirius disappears into and emerges out of the glare of the central Sun,it happens to be one of those spectacular astronomical events which clearly demonstrates the sweep of the Earth as certain stars in turn disappear and emerge from behind the Sun as the Earth travels around the Sun in its orbital circuit.It is an absolutely great way for students to learn about the orbital motion of the Earth and how the great astronomers in antiquity noticed that it takes Sirius an extra day after every 4 cycles of 365 days to return from behind the Sun's glare.It is therefore appropriate to include the founding historical description of 1461 days in tandem with the seasonal event of the flooding of the Nile to demonstrate how they formatted the system to the familiar 365/366 day format rather than jump straight into the overcompensation which led to the Gregorian correction and which is something that is exceptionally difficult to master and explain. If the need for Feb 29th broadens acceptance of the Earth's orbital motion in an enjoyable way through the original observation of Sirius then who can object to its inclusion in the main article as it falls within the understanding of an interested student.Gkell1 (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cycles[edit]

Sunday 29/2/00 (In U.S. writting: 2/29/00 ) appears once per... how much time? 2800 years? And once per how much time it crosses the Jewish Calendar Adar 6th ? 53 200 years (2800*19) ? 84.95.230.221 (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Gregorian calendar, February 29 never falls on a Sunday in a century year. However, if years divisible by 4000 are not leap years, then February 29, 8400 will be a Sunday. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

29th? No.[edit]

The leap day is a day inserted after February 23rd, not after the 28th. I thought this was common knowledge.. --Palnatoke (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, kind of like the days of the month could have been designated 1, 2...23, 23A, 24...28?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from the beginning of the Gregorian calendar the leap day was placed after February 23rd, thus following how we nominate calendar days, February 24th became the leap day, followed by the 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th and 29th. It would be interesting to understand the history behind why it was changed in Britain to February 29th: When exactly did this change happen and for what reasons? -- Martcx (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the days are still numbered consecutively: it's just that some annual civil deadlines or church holidays get bumped by a day. WHPratt (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The leap day (or bissextile day) was inserted after February 23 in a manner of speaking since the 3rd century, see Julian calendar#Intercalation. In Latin, the days of a month were counted backward from three cardinal days, the nones, ides, and kalendae. In this case, the bissextile day was designated "ante diem bis sextum Kalendas Martias" or "the second sixth day before March 1" (counted inclusively). In Roman numerals, the last few days of a bissextile February and March 1 were designated: VI, bis VI, V, IV, III, pridie, kalendas. When the days of a month began to be numbered consecutively during the Middle Ages, these days were designated 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 1. Simply numbering the days consecutively caused the leap day to shift to February 29. The fifth day or Feb 24 was called St. Matthias day by the Roman Catholic Church, so when numbered consecutively it was shifted to Feb 25 in leap years so that it would continue to be on V Kal. Mar. In 1969 the Roman Catholic Church changed his feast day to May 14. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Gregorian leap day in the canons associated with the 1582 papal bull Inter gravissimas (written in Latin) is specified by "duplex" next to "vj 24", that is, sixth kalends or 24 February is doubled. However, the 1750 British Calendar act does not double 24, instead it adds day 29 to the end of February. Thus, the article is correct for the Gregorian calendar used by English speaking Great Britain and its colonies. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
29th may be added instead of double 24th. But 24th is still the consideres the leap day. This is maybe not how we would design a calendar today but for historical reasons thats how it is.94.145.236.194 (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might say that some people consider the 29th to be the leap day whilst others stick to the traditional 24th. These are just two different perspectives on what is essentially the same calendar (or calendars (Julian and Gregorian)). There are other calendars out there though. The Thai lunar calendar mentioned above has leap days which are not 29 Feb as do the Ethiopian calendar, Zoroastrian calendar and French Republican Calendar, to name a few, then there are proposed calendars such as the International Fixed Calendar, Positivist calendar and World Calendar, fictional ones such as the Tolkien's Middle-earth calendars and extraterrestrial ones such as the proposed Martian Darian calendar. It makes no sense to have "leap day" redirect here. Jimp 09:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpretation of New Zealand Law[edit]

New Zealand law is misinterpreted in the February_29#Births. The statement that:

In cases of New Zealand citizens, the Parliament has decreed that if a date of birth was February 29, in non-leap years the legal birth date shall be the preceding day, February 28. This is affirmed in §2(2) of the Land Transport Act 1999.

Totally misrepresents the applicable New Zealand law. The cited legislation does not exist! The correct legal reference is §2(2) Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Rule 1999 and is correctly linked in the footnote. However, this is a regulation or rule issued under the Land Transport Act 1998 (not 1999) by the Ministry of Transport, not the Pariament, but the Executive branch of Government. All is says is that for the purposes of administering Driver Licensing if a Birthday, or other (anniversary) date, that falls on 29 February in a leap year then in non-leap years it falls on 28 February, i.e. it still falls on the last day of February, not the first day of March. Because a person must be at least 16 years old to apply for a driver licencse, this clause does not affect a person born on 29 February making an application on their 16th Birthday, which would also be 29 February. Where it does impact is later in life when from 75years old licences expire on a person's birthday. Under common law this would mean that a person whose birthday fell on 29 February would have their licence expire on 1 March in non-leap years and on 29 February in leap years. This clause actually results in the licence expiring one day earlier in non-leap years so that a licence held by a person with a birthday on 29 February would always expire at the end of the last day of February, rather than continuing into the first day of March.

The subsequent two references that in New Zealand people born on 29 February have a legal birthday on 28 February is also incorrect. In the first instance, Taiwanese law does not apply to New Zealand, so including New Zealand in the sentence is incorrect. In the second instance, New Zealand case law (Re an Infant (1936) 31 MCR 42) and legislation, section 35(2) of the Interpretation Act 1999, indicates that the date of birth is not included when counting the number of years to the birthday in question when determining a person's age. Thus a person born on 29 February will be one year old on 1 March because a leap year has 366 days according to the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 (24 Geo 2 c.23) and subsequent case law. I will therefore amend the New Zealand reference.

Also , I note there is no explanation (or citation) for why a person born on 29 February would have a birthday on 28 February, rather than 1 March in the United States. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Century years[edit]

The following century years skip February 29.
1700 1800 1900
2100 2200 2300
2500 2600 2700
2900 3000 3100
3300 3400 3500
3700 3800 3900
4100 4200 4300
4500 4600 4700
4900 5000 5100
5300 5400 5500
5700 5800 5900
6100 6200 6300
6500 6600 6700
6900 7000 7100
7300 7400 7500
7700 7800 7900
8100 8200 8300
8500 8600 8700
8900 9000 9100
9300 9400 9500
9700 9800 9900 GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a simple consequence of the 400 rule: century years not divisible by 400 aren't leap years in the Gregorian calendar. This list conveys no further information. -- Elphion (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 24[edit]

An extra day was added after the 23rd and the days after were renumbered: February 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 became February 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 respectively. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is ? The Romans used a different calendar anyway. -- Beardo (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorian Leap day in Chinese Calendar[edit]

The very first segment in the text makes it seem like leap days only occurs on the years of three non-goat/sheep animals in the Chinese calendar, but this is obviously false with 2016 being a leap year and being a year of the goat/sheep. I don't know what they author meant with this sentence, but someone who understands it should rewrite it for clarity so that it doesn't make it seem like leap years only coincide with those three named animals. (The sentence discussed here is "In the Chinese calendar, this day will only occur in years of the monkey, dragon, and rat.", and as I said 2016 is a Goat year, and a leap year, so this is obviously false) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.219.170.156 (talk) 15:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't 2016 (after Chinese New Year) the year of the Monkey? -- Elphion (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is the year of the Monkey. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, since 12 is divisible by 4, the leap years occur in the years of the Monkey, Dragon, and Rat. The year 2100, while not being a leap year in the Gregorian calendar, will also be the year of the Monkey. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP user 2603:300b:e01:bf00:1815:8413:24aa:87eb (talk · contribs · WHOIS) would like us to know that the eponymous animals mentioned above have their own articles, but hasn't quite grokked that we frown on changing other editors' remarks:

-- Elphion (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

seeming contradiction[edit]

More precisely, as derived from the Alfonsine tables, the Earth completes its orbit around the Sun in 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 16 seconds (365.2425 days). The currently accepted figure is 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45 seconds.

So, which is it? Presenting two different supposedly precise measurements in a row is just confusing. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Apologies for the quick revert, I should have checked the talk first. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 29 in 1600, 2000, 2400, ...[edit]

February 29 in a year divisible by 400 always falls on a Tuesday.

  • February 29, 1600 is 154945 days ago
  • February 29, 2000 is 8848 days ago
  • February 29, 2400 is 137249 days from now

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patently false?[edit]

@DeeJaye6: -- What is it that is "patently false" in the version replaced by [2] this edit? The Church's primary interest in the calendar has always been about the scheduling of Easter, which determines much of the rest of the liturgical calendar. This is why the issue of the creeping equinox was raised at the Council of Trent in the first place. -- Elphion (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen anything about this on a reputable site. Citation needed. All other evidence out there says that the Gregorian calendar was simply trying to fix the inaccuracies of the old Julian calendar. DeeJaye6 (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly there was concern that the year was shifting, but the spur to act was the drift specifically of Easter. See Gregorian calendar. I agree that the concern with Easter is not well sourced there, but you can certainly start with Pope Gregory's Bull (Inter gravissimus), in which Easter figures prominently. This is reflected also in the Catholic encyclopedia's article on Calendar Reform -- Elphion (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hearing no response, I've added Easter back into the article. -- Elphion (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birth/death deletions[edit]

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com seemingly randomly deleted some entries in the Births/Deaths list citing "insufficiently universally notable entries". I'd like to see the reasoning for deleting those specific entries and not others. --Marbe166 (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marbe166: this global project (one of many) and related discussions/proposed criteria are explained here. Quis separabit? 20:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion that stuck out for me, was Aileen Wuornos. With several films about her life, including the oscar-winning Monster plus books, TV films etc. her story is quite well-known outside her homeland. (See here for details of various media about her). In contrast, I'm in the UK and even as a cricket fan, I do not recall Sean Abbott an Australian cricketer who was left in. And although Darren Ambrose might be quite famous in my part of South London he's probably not known at all outside the UK. Also reading through the discussion linked above I'm afraid I cannot see what criteria have been decided upon for inclusion or otherwise. Eagleash (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash & @Marbe166: Well, there are always going to be differences of agreement. I felt the same way about Wuornos but as those notable solely for criminal activity were largely removed I felt it was only fair to remove her name as well. As far as sports figures go, if you read the colloquy (see here) I made it clear that I could not for the most part determine which athletes/sportspeople were or were not notable, and that someone else needed to handle that but as that help was not forthcoming I made the [poor] judgment call to dip my toes into the breach. Yours. Quis separabit? 21:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see any clear criteria for these deletions and think it is a bad idea also. Specifically, the February 29 list is going to be approximately a quarter of the size of other lists, so it should be the last one subject to any "trimming". There should be a widely advertised discussion of this before any more is done. In approximately four years from now, it will be the 100th birthday of the five people listed as being born on February 29, 1920. On and around that day, people will be coming to this page specifically to see who was born exactly one hundred years ago. Removing one of those five (Arthur Franz) on the basis that he is the least "notable" makes no sense. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I too still cannot see any clear criteria for deletions. Removing people known only for criminal activity might mean deletion of some very well-known names indeed. As for sportsmen, I could put forward the idea that only those who have played at full international level might be be a starting point for further discussion. This, however, does not necessarily help in sports where there is no international representative competition as such, motorsport for example, or horse-racing. Eagleash (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, @Eagleash. Quis separabit? 14:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think much of this would be moot if the births and deaths (and maybe even the events) were moved to separate list articles (List of people born on February 29, etc.). This information contributes little to understanding February 29. -- Elphion (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not, to be honest, think of treating February 29 differently per se than any other day, but I see your point(s), especially @AtHomeIn神戸. As everything that was deleted has been restored, I am not going to edit the page any further. As far as @Elphion's suggestions, please discuss among yourselves and hopefully you'll reach a consensus on how to proceed. Best wishes. Yours, Quis separabit? 14:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017[edit]

User:Marbe166: Yeah but I figured by now you had done everything you needed to do. I didn't realize that there was a permanent embargo on this page. OK, I have removed it from my watchlist. Yours, Quis separabit? 00:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Day of the week[edit]

seems to work out each day of the week every 7 leap years

  • 1964 Sat
  • 1968 Thu
  • 1972 Tue
  • 1976 Sun
  • 1980 Fri
  • 1984 Wed
  • 1988 Mon
  • 1992 Sat
  • 1996 Thu
  • 2000 Tue
  • 2004 Sun
  • 2008 Fri
  • 2012 Wed
  • 2016 Mon
  • 2020 Sat
  • 2024 Thu
  • 2028 Tue
  • 2032 Sun
  • 2036 Fri
  • 2040 Wed
  • 2044 Mon

Czechia2016 (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is obvious. Every 4-year period including a leap year has the same number of days, so seven such periods will have seven times that number. Since the grand total is divisible by 7, it will preserve week-day boundaries. -- Elphion (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IPv6 vandal is back...[edit]

[[3]]. Ivanvector, there is clearly a need for this IPv6 range to be blocked again. Could you please make it happen? Thanks. --Marbe166 (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marbe166:  Done. You might also be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaysey. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector Are you sure that you actually blocked the IP? It is back... --Marbe166 (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I guess I didn't. I'm pretty sure I did but there's no entry in the block log. I have fixed that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, new IPv6 range (2601:283:C200), same edits... --Marbe166 (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New range blocked and mass-reverted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date table sorting[edit]

February 29th in a non-leap year is an invalid date


Example {{date table sorting|2018/02/29|format=mdy|abbr=off}} should resume an error or output as March 1, 2018 but instead it outputs as February 29, 2018 which isn't even a valid date, is there anyway to correct the date?

--98.31.29.4 (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar repeat for leap years[edit]

leap year starting on Sunday leap year starting on Monday leap year starting on Tuesday leap year starting on Wednesday leap year starting on Thursday leap year starting on Friday leap year starting on Saturday
1860 1872 1856 1868 1852 1892 1848
1888 1884 1896 1880 1904 1876
1928 1912 1924 1908 1920 1932 1916
1956 1940 1952 1936 1948 1960 1944
1984 1968 1980 1964 1976 1988 1972
2012 1996 2008 1992 2004 2016 2000
2040 2024 2036 2020 2032 2044 2028
2068 2052 2064 2048 2060 2072 2056
2096 2080 2092 2076 2088 2084
2108 2120 2104 2116 2128 2112 2124


An example for a leap year starting on a Friday happened in 2016, and will repeat in 2044, 2072, 2100, and 2112 and the leap day falls on a Monday. However 2100 isn't really a leap year so there will be no February 29th, so in 2096 the leap day falls on a Wednesday, if a leap day falls on a Wednesday the next one will fall on a Monday unless if the last 2 digits end in 96 such like 2096, 2496, 2896, 3296, 3696, 4096, in those years when February 29th falls on a Wednesday, the next one falls on a Friday.


Leap day on Wednesday

2012 - next one is on a Monday
2040 - next one is on a Monday
2068 - next one is on a Monday
2096 - next one is on a Friday
2108 - next one is on a Monday

--2605:A000:1103:505:E1CD:4174:4C00:EA4C (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given any leap year that does not with 96, the following leap year will always have February 29 occurring two days earlier than in the starting leap year. In case of years ending with 96, if February 29 is on a Thursday (e.g. 1996), then the following leap year is divisible by 400 and has February 29 on a Tuesday. Otherwise, the following leap year ending in 04 will have February 29 on the same day of the week as in the preceding leap year ending in 92.
  • 1696, 1704 (or 2096, 2104; 2496, 2504; 2896, 2904; ...): Wednesday, Friday
  • 1796, 1804 (or 2196, 2204; 2596, 2604; 2996, 3004; ...): Monday, Wednesday
  • 1896, 1904 (or 2296, 2304; 2696, 2704; 3096, 3104; ...): Saturday, Monday GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2020[edit]

Under the "Fiction Section" , I suggest a bullet be added for:

Jerry Gergich, a fictional character on the TV series "Parks and Recreation", was born on February 29th, 1948 as noted in Season 4's Episode "Sweet Sixteen" Scirdan (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This needs a source, and doesn't seem worth including as simply being trivia. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoe Yoshioka[edit]

The well known Japanese singer Kiyoe Yoshioka was born on 29th February, 1984, yet it seems that, despite having been chosen by World Rugby to be the official singer of "World in Union" for the 2019 Rugby World Cup in Japan, it seems that she doesn't qualify to be included in the list. Why is she not acceptable? I do not ant to get into an editing war, but I want to make it clear that I am unhappy with the patronising reverted good faith edit.Dacramac (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:February_29/Archive_1&oldid=1083937838"