This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our
project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our
talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This 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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
I think this page be merged into
January. There is no need for a separate article on the latin name of a month, when such information already exists in the month's article.
Nyh10:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)reply
But see
Quintilis, for example. We have several articles on aspects of the Roman calendar. The articles on individual months amplify in greater detail material covered at
Roman festivals,
Roman calendar,
Julian calendar, and Fasti. The article isn't about the Latin name, but about the month itself. For this month, for instance, one could also use the vast amount of scholarship generated on January by Ovid's poem on the Roman calendar. It just isn't fully developed.
Cynwolfe (
talk)
17:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Move
Now that we have a full list of Roman dates for the month, it can't really fit into the #History section of January any more. That said, this month's COMMON ENGLISH NAME is still "January" and it's exactly the same month, just focused on its Roman context. It should be moved to
January (Roman) or
January (Roman calendar) instead of pretending that the Latin name was talking about a different subject or that it is commonly used in English. —
LlywelynII02:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Names
The alt form with J, the common anglicized form, and the abbreviation need to show up bolded in the article. If there's a feeling that they clutter the lead, they should be moved with the etymology to a new #Name section rather than removed entirely. —
LlywelynII23:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)reply