Talk:Seasons/@comment-70.92.179.184-20140412163521/@comment-70.92.179.184-20140416001742

Thank you for that update, Shoggoth1890. I knew that doing 20-1=19 did not include the first day. That was the point of doing that. That is why I said afterwards, "We've already established that you need to add one to that, or subtract from the end of the previous season. So let's do that: 20-0=20 days." No one would be dumb enough to think that day 20 is actually day 19. At least not when they step back and look at it. I mean, that mistake is how this huge, long thread got started in the first place, as it's the only way that any such mistake could be made.

Now please don't insult my intelligence again.

On a counternote, the method you used to determine actual lengths seems legitimate enough to me. So long as you've ensured that your findings are consistant (not simply doing it for the first two seasons and be done but continuing for a few afterwards), I'll accept these findings.

Snd one more thing... Why exactly did you undo the edit? I mentioned specifically that the reason I changed it was because of inconsistencies in comparison to season length and year length, and now those consistencies are back again. There's no way that a year with two 20-day seasons and two 16-day seasons could have 73 days in it, but that's what the article says.

I'd fix it myself, but I'm not sure where the end of the year should be, then. And I'm not sure I can replicate your method for checking, so you'll have to fix that yourself.