Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Time/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Time. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Assessment Department was launched in January 2008, and is now receiving regular reviews by the WP:1.0 editorial team. More articles and assessments are being added to the Project every day. I believe this attention is what's behind the recent spike in Participants, which is good to see. —Yamara ✉ 17:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

FrankP wrote here in 2004: "Implementation when we are in a position to formulate and implement an appropriate action plan." (See /Archive 1 for the rest of our founder's overview.) So far, there have been mostly individual efforts, which is what Wikipedia encourages first. I've left a Collaboration and Review links in the main page's sidebar, for anyone wishing to launch those departments. —Yamara ✉ 17:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC) I'm really impressed to see all the work that is going on in this project, which I started over four years ago. I found it hard to attract project participants at the beginning, and then for various reasons was unable to play much of a part in Wikipedia for a long while. Now I've come back wondering "whatever happened to that old Time project?", and I find it flourishing! That's really great. Many thanks to all who contributed and are contributing. I hope I can help out now as well, let's keep it going :) FrankP (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Main Project Page: I've updated the main page with templates, but I'd like input before changing the main text. Our Scope plainly includes maintaining the Time Portal. I would like to suggest expanding our Scope to include Help pages about Time, including those I've listed in the sidebar, as these are largely disorganized, especially compared to most of the rest of Wikipedia's help and MoS pages. —Yamara ✉ 17:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Expand our Scope to include Help pages about Time?

• Support — The potential for coordination, alone, would be helpful. It would provide users somewhere to turn with additional questions, and could lead to discovering missing features. —Yamara ✉ 17:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Those pages have nothing to do with the concept of time. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Clear and useful help about dates and time will assist with keeping the treatment of Time consistent across Wikipedia and so it would be consistent with the project's goals. It may not be the top priority, but if someone is ready to take it on I'd say that's a good thing. FrankP (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Our Goals; currently: "To create, expand, and maintain articles related to time. This will specifically include those articles contained within the Category:Time, and generally include any article that discusses time." Fair enough, but I suggest a clearer hierarchy, with the Vital/Core articles being at the top, and perhaps a mention of maintenance. Any thoughts? —Yamara ✉ 17:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Maintain is the verb form of the noun maintenance, so this is already mentioned. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 19:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I'll add "sleep before writing" to my personal to do list. —Yamara ✉ 20:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've listed the Portal as being the purview of WikiProject Time on various directory pages. While I hope I have made it a useful stop on Wikipedia, its "monthly" features (Selected article/picture/biography and Did you Know?) are still not built in, and are static shells. It's not a major goal of the Project, but if anyone is interested, it's something that would enhance the Portal. —Yamara ✉ 17:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Help:Calendar, currently a very sketchy page of time/date presentations, held WP:TIME as one of several redirects. This seemed unhelpful and counterintuitive, so I directed WP:TIME here to the Project, and put it into the various WikiProject directories. I placed a hatnote on our main page to aid anyone still looking for Help:Calendar (Help:Time was already another of Help:Calendar's redirects.) I also have listed the various Wikipedia feature pages about Time on the main pages of the Project and the Portal, since I had a hard time finding them, and wanted to save other users the same trouble. I've posted a request above to expand our scope into this meta realm, as these pages are a disorganized mess, which is not what timekeeping is supposed to be about... —Yamara ✉ 17:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we set up a hierarchy for Importance assessments? Few projects do, but we're interdisciplinary (including Religion and Science) and this could circumvent conflicts... or maybe set them off. Or would it be only so much wasted effort at this point? —Yamara ✉ 17:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I started to do this and I think I have all 25 "Top" importance articles tagged, I will soon start doing the high importance. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a space to discuss what everyone thinks this means regarding WikiProject Time's "descendant" projects. Should these be turned into taskforces or something? —Yamara ✉ 17:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've featured them on the To-do list above, as they are all major goals of Wikipedia itself. It's good to research lower-importance articles (ie Hourglass) and make improvements here or there, but the primary articles should always be showcased and encouraged towards completion. —Yamara ✉ 17:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any use for this table? I made it, but I don't have any use for it now. - LA @ 07:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It will at least help us locate a few more articles to assess. Thanks! —Yamara ✉ 08:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I will move into your project's space at Wikipedia:WikiProject Time/Time zone table. You can then include it anywhere you wish. Sound good? - LA @ 09:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be off the radar here. Talk:Mya (unit) has a discussion about merging a group of rather sloppy articles into Annum. Please weigh in there.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi I just started tagging - and realised from doing some tagging for non article and category that there might have been two varieties of category tagging - is anyone around who set up the template? Is there a deliberate separation between the NA and Cat versions of class - or was it an accident? thanks SatuSuro 11:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 15:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy leap day! --Yamara ✉ 17:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am using the AutoWikiBrowser to tag the articles in sub-categories of Category:Time. These articles have not been assessed unless they were previously assessed in other projects or were categories. I have currently tagged, all the articles in Category:Time itself,Category:Time in astronomy and its sub category, Category:Units of time, Category:Philosophy of time, Category:Timekeeping, Category:Time measurement systems, and Category:Calendars. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 01:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I completed Category:Specific calendars and all sub-cats expect for Category:Chinese calendar templates, see below, and Category:Jewish holy days, Category:Shabbat, and Category:Hebrew years. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 21:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Time and fate deities completed. Zginder 2008-04-23T20:39Z (UTC)

Should we tag all 4,100+ of these templates? Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 01:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[2] links to many calendar articles. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 15:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Can Some one who knows the template on the right on the project page, add Time Times to the template? Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 21:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Put it next to the Time Portal. --Yamara ✉ 21:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The achievement of astronomical precision concerning solar calendars doesn't be attaint as long as the civil calendar doesn't apply the true value of the tropical year. This means: One exceptional not-leaping year every 128 years exactly one, instead of three days during 400 years, i.e. 133⅓ years on average. Thus only this proposal of a New Civil Calendar is astronomically correct. Don't look for groups or associations supporting this calendar, since its creator detests all practices of lobbying, but trusts on its indubitable correctitude.
-- Halloo 007 (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I ran across this article via Special:Random and was wondering if it should be improved or merged to Nanakshahi calendar? --Random832 (contribs) 15:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am no expert, but I do not think they are the same thing. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 20:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah - but they look related. I don't know. --Random832 (contribs) 03:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

April 21 indicates that Catherine II of Russia was born, but reading the article Catherine II of Russia suggests that this is the old style (Julian) date on which she was born, and that her new style (Gregorian) date of birth is actually May 2. Accordingly, May 2 also lists Catherine II of Russia as being born on that date. To list her (or anyone else for that matter) as being born on both dates without clarification is to mislead anyone who doesn't click through to the article for that individual. Is there some sort of policy for this? 199.91.34.33 (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Time-keepers,
There is an External link off the Aztec calendar main page leading to an animated Aztec calendar that removes all confusion about how it worked. It depicts clearly the exact mechanics of the Native time-keeping system. I think this finally resolves the riddle of how two calendars worked as one. Also, the "Year Bearer" progression-mechanics is fully accounted for. This looks like a breakthrough.Grae Bear (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

---

There was a discussion for the aricle talk:list of timelines#Definition of Timeline about the terms timeline and chronology. I agree that that these terms are used interchangeably in practice. However, I have a problem with the usage of these terms in the wikipedia and the distinction made under Category:Chronology to wit:
This category (Chronology) concerns the chronological classification of events. For individual timelines, see Category:Timelines.
I’m not sure exactly what this distinction means, but the usage of these terms in article titles seems very haphazard. Following are representative examples: Some artcles under Category:Chronology are entitled:

• Chronology of X - as Chronology of Ancient Near East
• X Chronology – as Egyptian Chronology
• On the other hand, Minoan chronology is not listed as a Category:Chronology or Category:Timeline
• Seemingly comparable chronologies are not listed under Category:Chronology or Category:Timeline
• Timeline of ancient Mesopotamia
• Timeline of Middle Eastern history (This is an orphan covered under no categories).
• The article Chronology of Jesus is found under Category:Chronology and Category:Timeline subcategory Category:Religion timelines. This is an interesting and useful article, but with no offense meant to the authors or anyone else, I don’t see the commonality between this and other articles under Category:Chronology or Category:Timeline.

Under Category:Timeline subcategory Category:Regional timelines I find the title:

• Chronology of Tamil history

In List of timelines there are a number of articles that are not listed under Category:Chronology or Category:Timeline

• Chronology of colonialism
• Timeline of Chinese history

These titles and category assignments make it hard to find articles in a systematic way.Grapeguy (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm an editor attempting to clarify this distinction. Chronology is an article that needs to address the science and history of placing events in time (and it's only shakily on its way). I separated timeline to its own article to emphasize this. In any case, the haphazardness predates my efforts to make a distinction: Thousands of different editors create and maintain timelines.

The problem stems from the fact that none of these are linguistically wrong: a timeline = a chronology in standard English usage.[3] However, chronology as a science is much more encompassing in scope. One problem is there are few people who define themselves solely as "chronologists"-- chronology is a science, but is mostly seen as a toolset of other disciplines to determine when events occur, i.e. history, geology, archaeology. And yet it clearly differs from a presentation of these determinations, specifically a timeline. But terminology has not rigorously asserted this clear difference in English: Since "a chronology" is widely attested to equal "a timeline", it might violate WP:NOR to insist that editors choose one name over another.

Perhaps we need to propose a WP:MOS rule for this? It's a consistency issue that exists primarily because of English.

I close with a simple visual we might turn into a talk page template for timelines:

a timeline = a chronology

but

Chronology is much more than just a timeline.

--Yamara ✉ 14:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a chronology focuses on unity of subject when events though complicated are closely connected, a timeline on diversity within a unity of time. A chronology might be of a war, a crime, a life - its concern is to put events in their proper order in order to understand the subject more clearly. A timeline might be of the 20th century, South American history, inventions - its concern is show the relationship in time of a diversity of events, it is perhaps often more concerned with an idea of evolution, though not necessarily. But there is often not a clear difference. Jagdfeld (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Could I have someone from the Time Wikiproject analyze the article for A-class status and to see how close it is to FA status? My impression is that it's pretty close, but I could be wrong. bibliomaniac15 04:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have approved it for A-class. If another WikiProject member can assess it too in the next few day, it would be helpful, before I promote. Zginder 2008-05-20T12:33Z (UTC)

There's a fair amount of misinformation/confusion on various pages regarding the Prime Meridian, & ITRF Zero Meridian.
It'd be worth a full root through & weeding out. 86.135.51.232 (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This WikiProject is having a revival and is trying to determine the direction it will be heading in the future. Questions are being asked, and exciting things are coming in the future that could impact this project, including the bringing of 1345 and other year articles to GA and even FA status. Please consider joining this project and improving year articles on wikipedia. Wrad (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Category sort proposal. Adding a pointer here, as the proposal covers decades, centuries, and millennia, as well as years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I am having trouble with an IP address, as you all know the year 2000 is the last year of the 2nd millennium not the first year of the 3rd. This IP address has reverted my edits that removed a sentence that says the year was the first of the 3rd millennium. i had told him several times about the whole year zero thing and when the millenniums end and that with links to other articles about millenniums but he stills reverts. What are your ideas to how best i can deal with this problem? Pro66 (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact 1) your view is not agreed with by most people. Your references to articles in support are spurious and underhand. 2) you are trying to impose you view on everyone else. See the discussion Millennium#Debate over millennium celebrations. For the vast majority of people the new millennium began 1 January 2000. It is perfectly acceptable to say so. 62.64.210.156 (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

However, it's the project consensus that our centuries and millennia are as specified. It's OK (if sourced) to say that the majority{{who}} believe centuries and millennia are based on the first few digits of the year number, but you (62.64.210.*) are acting contrary to Wikipedia convention, and you need to get consensus to change the convention before repeating your vandalism disruptive changes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That is the sadness of wikipedia: anal retentives rule. The "consensus" of all of these things is created by people who, are threatened by diversity, cannot bear any diversity to exist, and fight to stop it. They get in first with their POV and then attack anyone who tries to introduce balance or even sanity. The internet starts with libertarian ideals and slowly the creeps and their creepy tactics choke it to death. Pogroms, genocide, jim crow laws, segregation, the kkk, gas chambers, inquisitions. It is the same blind fanaticism and self-righteousness. Most people call 1 January 2000 the beginning of this millennium. Bless them, they can have it that way. Jagdfeld (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The last comment appeared to be mostly rant, but we would still need a citation to include the statement that "most people call 1 January 2000 the beginning of this millennium". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently, 1293 articles are assigned to this project, of which 352, or 27.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I came to this project because one of the pages that I contributed to (DAYS360) has been assigned to this Project. However, looking at the scope and taxonomy proposed, I do wonder about this. This project seems to be all about about Calendar standardisation and seems to have a closed perspective around this. The DAYS360 page relates to the use of calendars for financial and actuarial support for business, our even IT support for the same. In terms of our society these are important aspect but this whole taxonomy and discussion ignores this. It this project is going to tag pages as its own then it must be consistent: it must then embrace the scope and drivers for their creation otherwise we simply have "taxation without representation".  :-) TerryE (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7. We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I was clearly too tired last night to realise this project existed, else I would have posted here. I've tried to open a discussion about the pages for individual time zones and time offsets at Talk:List of time zones#Articles on time zones and time offsets - basically, how do we define them, what do we put on each page, how do we make them more standardised, etc. Thoughts appreciated... - IMSoP (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone has apparently reached the conclusion that the entire month of March is not notable, and has nominated every date in it for deletion. You folks might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/March_1. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Or at least the days thereof; March itself isn't nominated. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to go for now, so just a heads-up: We have a user editing 2009, 2010, and 2011, changing statements like "2009 will be a common year" to "2009 is expected to be a common year" on the basis that "We simply do not know know what the future holds". Furthermore, he is requesting citations for the assertion that 2009 or 2010 will occur. He then placed a citation-needed tag in 2009 and 2010 (I can't predict the future, I suppose, but my educated guess is that he'll do the same for 2011). I don't want to go into 3RR territory, I don't want to play mind games, and as I said, I need to get going, so someone else might want to have a look at this. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There can be doubts as to whether he'll be on Wikipedia in 2008, 2009, 2010, or 2011, but.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years might be more appropriate than this talk page, but it's not out of place. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In medieval times the solstices were midsummer and midwinter. It doesn't seem this was some archaic and obscure use of the prefix mid-, but rather just the middle of summer and the middle of winter. When one tries to discover when and how the solstices stopped being the middles of the seasons and became their beginnings, one eventually discovers

There is a widespread misconception in this country--which extends, I might note, to the makers of most calendars, dictionaries, and encyclopedias--that summer "officially" starts on the day of the summer solstice, June 21 or 22, which is the longest day of the year. Americans also believe (1) that there is some valid scientific reason for doing it that way, and (2) that everybody in the Northern Hemisphere does it that way, and always has.

None of these things is true. So far as I have been able to discover, no scientific or governmental body has ever formally declared that summer starts on the solstice. ...

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/161/is-it-true-summer-in-ireland-starts-may-1

This seems to be the last word on the subject. Certainly any statement that winter or summer "astronomically starts" on the solstice needs to quote an actual astronomer saying so. Foogus (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

New York University School of Medicine#History might benefit from a graphic for the (three?) timelines in it. Fortunately, it's already well-referenced, thanks to User:Struthious Bandersnatch's efforts. If someone has an interest in this type of work, please feel free to tackle it! WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC) (who is not watching this page, but can be reached on her user talk page)

I know- it's an old subject, please hear me out. Problem: syntax for dates is difficult to read, and prone to error. EG:

{{Start date|1941|12|7|0|Z|df=yes}}

(sometime in the hour of 12 midnight on 7 December 1941) is somewhat baffling to lay users and and the output format is not often appropriate for all articles. Due to the under appreciated complexities of date math and manipulations, such wikitext based template may well have bugs. The above example displays as:

00:0Z, 7 December 1941 (1941-12-07T00:0Z)

Not a pretty sight- or particularly readable — either in wikitext or the output. It's true that the template writers did this for a reason- they are outputting microcode format, and like the geocoding effort, that is a very good thing. The is not user friendly. Instead, I have a template that allows natural formatting and wikitext markup for dates, allowing them to use links, Julian or Chinese display, and does not burdening them with having to learn the template syntax.

Start-date & End-date usage (colors for emphasis only):

Sample below displays 7 December 1941 (1941-12-07), and microformat date: 1941-12-07T00:00Z {{start-date|7 December 1941}}

Sample below demonstrating how days, timezones and hours, minutes and seconds can be shown. (Order often not important). Displays 5:43PM HST, December 7, 1941 (1941-12-08UTC03:43), and microformat date (corrected for UTC): 1941-12-08T03:43:00Z {{start-date|5:43PM HST, December 7, 1941}}

Sample below demonstrating use of links with dates. Displays links to day of month and year pages. December 7, 1941 (1941-12-07), and microformat date: 1941-12-07T00:00Z {{start-date|December 7, 1941|[[December 7]], [[1941]]}}

Sample below demonstrating use of Julian calendar dates. Displays 9 June [O.S. 30 May] 1672 (1692-06-09), and microformat date: 1692-06-09T00:00:00Z {{start-date|9 June 1692|{{OldStyleDate|9 June|1672|30 May}} }}

I am the author of the template and my goal is to have a microformat emitting template that imposes fewer restrictions on contributors, is more robust in its date capabilities, and hopefully may therefore be used more widely. I would appreciate any input, suggestions, criticisms, at either a general or at a technical level. My intention is to seek switchover to this form of template. If the community thinks it is a good idea, I would construct a bot run to convert over whichever templates we agreed were to be deprecated. We are a long way away from that step. First, I need to know if folks think this sort of thing is a good idea.-J JMesserly (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Note the related discussion at Microformat dates- template start date is the wrong approach, which proposes to deprecate {{Start date}}. I suggest discussion be centralised. Supposed bugs in {{Tl|Start date}] should initially be raised on its talk page, to see if a solution is first necessary, and if so, available. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a bug problem with start date. It is a general problem of with the needless approach of making dates hostile to the goals of common contributors- concerning both end dates and start dates. It is of general interest to the community interested in Time issues. -J JMesserly (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You say above "such wikitext based template [sic] may well have bugs". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's get concrete. I have edited the article First Battle of the Aisne to use {{start-date}} This allows the editor to specify links to 13 September and 28 September, in a human readable way. Please edit the article to illustrate best practice with {{start date}}. Presumably, it is something like {{start date|1914|09|13|df=yes}} which makes the date encoding needlessly arcane, and needlessly imposes restrictions- displaying the year (not what the contributor wanted), and makes links or use of templates like Julian calendar difficult if not impossible. With the new {{start-date}} the contributor can just type the date in the form they are comfortable in expressing it in. Today, you can even put in time zones, which {{start date}} will never be able to do. So from multiple perspectives, the older and arcane {{start date}} is a poor solution to the problem it is addressing. -J JMesserly (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I did suggest that discussion should be centralised. Your edits to First Battle of the Aisne make it emit a microformat with the dates: dtstart=1914-09-13T00:00:00Z and dtend=1914-09-28T23:59:00Z. Do you have any reliable sources to confirm that the battle started at midnight at the start of the 13th and ended at 11:59pm on the 28th? {{Start date}} already handles time-zones. As for date-linking… Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit of a nit, isn't it. The question is readability and restricting what the contributor can express. You have no response and instead bring up an issue about vague dates- an issue not many people care about but that will soon be moot anyway. -J JMesserly (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I brought up a valid issue about bogus and uncited metadata. I have already asked you to substantiate your claims about supposed problems with {{Start date}}, refuted others, and suggested a better approach to resolving any which might exists, elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) We are still waiting for the syntax needed to express these dates for First Battle of the Aisne using the old date templates. Please illuminate us with an example demonstrating your assertions of the superiority of the old templates. You have also made these pronouncements of bogus date handling characteristics at the the admin incidents page where you were forced to admit your erroneous assertions that {{start-date}} and {{end-date}} where emitting bogus information. Please. Marshal your facts better before presenting your case. Bug reports on the obscure problem you listed concerning uncited dates can be posted to the template's talk page. It was a bit of a red herring though wasn't it, because the old template also emitted 1914-09-28T23:59:00Z. Am I asking you for a citation that the battle ended a minute before midnight? No. It's a nit. But if you will kindly notice, without any change of data, the battle of Aisne now more correctly emits a dtend date of 1914-09-29. Can {{end date}} do that? No. Do you deny that {{end-date}} correctly handles date calculations? Do you assert that {{end date}} does? If any template is emitting bogus information, it is {{start date}} and end date which besides not handling date calculations, natural language dates, time zones, they also do not handle BC dates. In what respect is any of the old templates superior? Please be specific. -J JMesserly (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

{{End-date|2009}} emits 2009 (2010) and includes a bogus metadata end-date value of "2010Z". That is incorrect; and so yes: I do deny that {{end-date}} correctly handles date calculations. This problem has been pointed out to you previously. The older templates are superior in that they do not issue such bogus metadata; and you have been invited to raise any supposed bugs in their behaviour on their talk pages. Oddly, you have not done so. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We are making progress. Specifics are good. I described this behavior on the admin incidents board (see case2) and you admitted your error in asserting the dates were AD, but made no mention of your disagreement with the clearly described dtend calculation. But better late than never. So what of 2010Z do you believe is incorrect? dtend is exclusive, meaning that if an event ends on friday, we are supposed to give the date for saturday in dtend. User specified 2009- we don't know if it was 2009-01, or 2009-12-31 23:59. {{End-date|2009}} displays 2009 (2010) and with CSS off it displays 2010Z. The granularity of precision is one year in this case, so 2010 is correct. As a feature, this can by default expect UTC date/times or not. That is a tactical question best left to the MOSNUM community. I really don't care which way that discussion goes- I can see the arguments on both sides. -J JMesserly (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This problem has been pointed out to you previously.. 2010 is not correct. Your assumptions about the nature of dtend are erroneous; please read the relevant specs (my past experience is that you will not take advice unless directed to original sources), and desist in making further experimental edits in article space until you have understood what you are doing wrong; fixed it, and obtained consensus for the changes you wish to introduce. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if it is incorrect, then at least for the benefit of others, where have you pointed this out, and where are your citations, and what exactly should it state? 2009? Andy, you are simply asking us to take your word for it. The authoritative document on this, RCF2445 does not give examples of events where year only is specified. I am perfectly happy to follow what authorities specify, but I can't accept heresy from you since you have frequently been shown to be mistaken or misrepresenting the state of thinking in the microformats community. Please excuse my request for citations. I am perfectly happy to restate again the rationale for the way the template does things, and am quite flexible if we want to do it another way. We know from RFC2445 that that dtend is exclusive. So if an event ends at 5:00, the dtend is 5:00, but the event does not include 5:00. This is perfectly intuitive for hour, minute granularities. This is seems totally normal for date times, but for dates, the recommendation at microformats site is to specify +1 day for a day event [4], but not use abbr, since semantically, 2007-04-30 is not an abbreviation of 2007-04-29. We aren't using abbr, so our semantics not incorrect on that score. The microformats community admits this is all very confusing to end users as is patently obvious to me when I first looked at it. They are considering Tantek's solution of dtlast in place of dtend, and I think I speak for a lot of folks on WP that would love that solution. For now, we have dtend, and it is exclusive. That means +1 day when the precision granularity is one day, and plus one year when the granularity is one year. Semantically, 2010 means 2010-01-01T00:00:00Z, to extrapolate from the microformats example. It would take me about 10 seconds to emit it that way, or to emit it as 2009-12-31T23:59:59 or 2009-12-31T24:00:00. Actually, in one version of the template, it emitted dates that way, which also met with disapproval from Pigsonthewing. The point is, I am agnostic on the subject. But if someone here makes an assertion that one way is incorrect, and another is definately correct, everyone is entitled to see the citations where a recognized authority says what to do in the case where only the year, or the year-month is specified. If the community wants to chuck all external advice, then that's fine too. In that case, I propose that the venue be the MOSNUM (manual of style numbers and dates) group, and that we do whatever their consensus opinion says. -J JMesserly (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Your assertions about DTEND (and more) are bogus. Otherwise, perhaps you could cite the part of the spec which supports your view of how this works? After all, you have claimed to have read and understood the hCalendar specification, have you not? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I have provided links for anyone to consider the rationale I used. In return, not only have you declined to even mention the value that you believe is correct, more importantly you have declined to provide citations showing why your way is the only correct way of doing it, or that the current behavior is indeed bogus as you claim. We are being asked to take your word for it. That is insufficient. I have sought to be transparent with the reasoning supporting the current behavior. So far, you have not supported your claims of bogousity despite repeated queries. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"I have provided links": So you have; but you have not and cannot cite an authoritative - nor any - source saying that what you are doing is correct. You are merely asking us to take your word for it; and you are wrong. And therefore doing harm to Wikipedia. I don't recall you having previously asked for the correct value, but it is "2009"; per the hCalendar spec. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you have not supported your allegations, but we are making progress here. Your assertion is that the correct encoding is dtend = "2009" alone? Where is there any authoritative example of that? -J JMesserly (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have supported my allegations. Once again, I do not intend to repeat my answers to your questions. Can you yet cite evidence that your method is correct? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have, then I apologize for missing it. Could you please point us to an authoritative example where year or month is indicated as you claim, or for example a statement that says that parsers are to interpret dtend dates as the very end of the period (EG example above where 2009 would be interpreted in a dtend as 2009-12-31T24:00:00? The discussion I pointed to above indicated the thinking of Tantek was to create a dtlast. As I said. I don't care which way to do it, I just can't take your word that 2009 is correct because as I have shown, I have evidence that contradicts what you say. So please, let's cut this off. Give me a reliable source of information that confirms that this is a bug, I'll correct the template accordingly and we can end this unnecessarily drawn out issue. Please- not a link to an entire spec. I further propose that this bug report be moved to the template talk page where it belongs. In needn't clutter the project time talk page as it is only of concern to the microformats crowd, which on WP consists of just you and me as active members. -J JMesserly (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You have; and have shown, no evidence that contradicts what I say. (And DTLAST was my idea, albeit renamed by Celik). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I find some of the colours in the maps used in e.g. Time Zone very hard to distinguish. This is because I have red-green colour blindness and browns and greens appear very similar to me. Would it be possible to create a version mroe suitable for people with this very common form of colour-blindness?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You've got a good point; and might also like to raise the matter with the accessibility project. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This calendar is ridiculous. English-speeking people are accustomed to calendars showing weeks starting on Sunday—not to the new continental European standard (to what extent it is followed in Europe is might be of interest to know). Michael Hardy (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Just came across 100 AH whilst reading random articles - seems in the past a whole heap of articles for particular years - and centuries were created. Some of the years have a few brief one-liners on deaths etc but a lot are unreferenced. I don't see the point in running a dual year system - it can't easily be incorporated into timelines, so I wonder if we need this whole category - would be better to include 'calendar type' and date conversion tools... ? LeeVJ (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:46, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

I've been told that the age of a cuckoo clock can be determined by the Roman numerals: If "4" is IIII instead of IV and if VI and VII are upside down, this determines the date. Is this true and if so, what dates? I have an old German cuckoo clock with ivory hands, of 1900 vintage. Any information will be appreciated. Thanks, D. Lowell Nissley (nusslihaus@verizon.net) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.233.160 (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No updates since 2008, needs some maintenance, perhaps put it on rotation. feydey (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The articles on negative time offsets from UTC (such as UTC-4) all seem to be named with a hyphen instead of a minus sign, although a minus sign is used in the intros, as well as in Template:Timezones. Is there a special reason for this? I can't see anything specific to titles with minus signs in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes, but the spirit of it seems to say that minus signs should be used, with redirects from the hyphenated title? —JAO • T • C 14:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

These articles describe TCG and TCB very well in my opinion. But both articles claim that when doing physics calculations in TCG or TCB, or to be more precise in the GCRS or BCRS reference systems, you have to use adjusted physical constants. I believe this to be exactly wrong, and that the terrestrial laboratory values apply. It is when you use TDB, i.e. the ad hoc scaled version of TCB (and the same goes for TT/TCG), that changed physical constants are needed.

Sparecrust (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Airy condition

In 1826 British astronomer George Airy showed that the disturbing effect of a drive force on the period (actually the phase) of a pendulum is smallest if given as a short impulse as the pendulum passes through its bottom equilibrium position.[2] Specifically, he proved that if a pendulum is driven by an impulse that is symmetrical about its bottom equilibrium position, the pendulum's swing will be isochronous for changes in drive force.[88] The most accurate escapements, such as the deadbeat, approximately satisfy this condition.[89]

I do not have the original paper to see the accuracy of this entry, but the word isochronous associated with change of drive force ignores the change of amplitude with drive force and the consequent change of circular error that will result. This may just be a problem in the wording of this item. Now the deadbeat escapement only satisfies this criterion if it is adjusted to beat correctly.

I hope this is a constructive contribution, it is my first contribution an I am not familiar with the conventions, Pendulous (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. --Conti|✉ 11:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the use of the word "proper" to describe time, or to describe the topic of any subject, not only implies and infers that the true and correct meaning and purpose in the "whole subject" will follow, but that its contents will be "whole and complete" in meaningfulness and purposefulness. The word "proper" is reseverved for what is truly accurate and fitting of the whole subject, not just for what is true in one particular sense but not in any other sense. The "whole use and usefulness of time" certainly extends well above and beyond the present concept of time that is being refered to as "proper". Certainly, the proper use and usefulness of time is naturally apprehended and perfectly understood by everything in nature, not only by mankind, and not only by man for the purposes of conducting science or for the purpose of predicating "properties" of a subject that do not properly belong to that subject.

Time is not only conducted in all of nature without the particular clock that is being referred to, but nature overall has always corresponded in well order to well order in a spontaneous manner, at all times in one and the same instant of time, as well as, at all times in each and every instant of time, without being synchronized to the particular clock that is being refered to. Truth is certainly not a function of time, but time is certainly a function of truth. "Now" is the clock and the clockworks of truth and present good, and time is of the essence in truth, as well as, time is in the present use and usefulness of each and everything in nature. Strange as it may seem to some, everything in nature does naturally apprehend and perfectly understand truth upon a moment's notice of the present truth in the present moment of truth. That happens to be the only "kind of time" that always applies to everything in nature, as well as, always happens to be counted upon by everything in nature. It is apparent to all of nature that truth is the one and only standard of time in all of nature, except for mankinds endeavors to make truth work according to each mans concept of time.

Confused and disoriented as each and everyone of us might be in one moment or another, it seems that a more truthful and useful description of the "kind of time" referred to in the context that was actually used under the heading "Proper time", would be headed more appropriately as "Clock Time System" (all according to the time in and of and by one kind of clock), or headed as "Relative Time System" (all of which is only relative and only relates to the time that is inicated on one and the same clock that produces the time), or headed as "Ground Standard Time to Satellite Reference Global Positioning System" (all of which is completely dependent upon the accuracy and precision of time keeping in one standard reference clock that is stationary on the ground).

NewEraGuy (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

At my request, Yarnalgo (talk · contribs) created a new template called {{Birth based on age as of date}}. The new template is for the situation when the only birth and age information you have about someone is that he or she was a certain age as of a certain date. For example, at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/arts/television/20pbs.html?pagewanted=print you read an article dated August 19, 2008 that says "Mr. Savidge, 50, was born to British parents" and can update the article for Martin Savidge to use the following in the biographical infobox:

{{Birth based on age as of date|50|2008|8|19}}<ref name="nytimes"/>

Although Yarnalgo did the heavy lifting, I've done some documentation updates to reflect the existence of the new template. Thanks. 67.101.5.111 (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

We're discussing the accessibility of calendar pages. Please join us! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a list of popular pages for this project at [5]. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

BruceGrubb (talk) introduced some changes in the time travel article, which seem quite messy, add unnecessary complexity and use jargon from some work of fiction, and insists that it is better this way. So it would be good if someone would take a look at it, join the discussion on the talk page and try to find an solution.

Thanks. --antiXt (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Time to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Time/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I was wondering if it had ever been discussed to include a time zone's current time in its article. It shouldn't be a problem technically with the {{CurrentTimeIn}} template, but I don't know if there are other considerations that make it a bad idea? Thanks, TastyCakes (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the details, but there is something about the way that Wikipedia caches information that often leads to the output of the various current time functions to be seriously out-of-date. I wouldn't even trust it to be within an hour of the correct time. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Only the english wiki defines Chronometer as a 'accurate timepiece that has to be certified by the COSC'

If you look at the other languages, most don't mention it, they seem to to be the exact synonym of stopwatch. (For the languages I know, Italian and Japanese mention SOSC but also englobe the definition of stopwatch. French and German only define it as a stopwatch, meaning: a piece of equipment which measures time very accurately)

For me (British), stopwatch is an American word to say chronometer. I heard about the word 'Stopwatch' reading the internet.

I think most of the international wiki links should be moved to stopwatch, only those referring to the 'certified by the COSC' fact should be linked to English page. What should I do about it? -08:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cy21 (talk • contribs)

I have nominated Indian Standard Time for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I found an interesting article here about how the times the infamous manifesto has date and time stamps in it marked ending in Z which is supposedly zulu or UTC. The writer of the article converts the times to Central time, however incorrectly it seems. I want to use this as a source and put a revision up using my own conversions here. Can somebody sign off that I did this correctly? Can I have suggestions on how to format the results? - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I checked the list of calendars and didn't see this New Jerusalem calendar listed. You can look over the calendar here. It is suggested for global use http://www.alphaomeganewjerusalem.com/sitebuilder/images/newjerusalem.pdf http://www.alphaomeganewjerusalem.com

Alpha Omega New Year Day 0/0 is on the Vernal Equinox at Niagara Falls which is March 17th gregorian time. Alpha Omega Leap Day is used every 4 years.

The calendar has 365 days with 12 Months beginning with March as the first month and following with April,May,June,July,August,September(7th month), October(8th month), November(9th month), December(10th month), January, February.

There are 4 quarters for the 4 seasons. Each quarter contains 91 days (13 weeks of 7 days). The months of each quarter go in a 454 pattern. 4 weeks 5 weeks 4 weeks to keep the weeks unbroken.

Days of the week are Sunday,Monday,Tuesday,Wednesday,Thursday,Friday,Saturday

Here are the holidays of New Jerusalem Christianity:

New Jerusalem with King James Bible

0/0 ---------- ALPHA OMEGA NEW YEAR DAY – VERNAL EQUINOX MAR 1/14 ----- PASSOVER MAR 1/15-21 -- FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD MAR 1/22 ----- EASTER APR 2/28 ----- MOTHER’S DAY MAY 3/8 ------ PENTECOST MAY 3/28 ----- FATHER’S DAY JUN 4/15-22 -- GOD’S INDEPENDENCE CELEBRATION SEPT 7/1 ----- FEAST OF TRUMPETS SEPT 7/10 ---- DAY OF ATONEMENT SEPT 7/15-21 - FEAST OF TABERNACLES SEPT 7/22 ---- LAST GREAT DAY OCT 8/18 ----- HALLOWEEN NOV 9/4,5 ---- TRUTH DAY THANKSGIVING DEC 10/1-8 --- FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS CHRISTMAS JAN 11/32 ---- LOVE DAY FEB 12/14-15 - FEAST OF PURIM

Sincerely, Russell James Ewert

—Preceding unsigned comment added by RussEwert (talk • contribs) 21:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed the Template:WikiProject Time to add c-class and I must have done something wrong as seen here. If the class is "c" a small letter the importance will not show while it will if the class is "C" a large letter. Zginder 2008-07-10T15:54Z (UTC)

A small fix needs to be made at a time template. Please see my comment at Template talk:Year3 NoSeptember 12:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I created redirects for the time zone identifiers as stored in the tz database based on data in the list of tz database time zones. The redirect lead to best corresponding geographic location and can all be found in Category:Tz database.

It would be nice to have maps, including a world map based on the tz ids. TimeCurrency (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In Sweden we say 15 October 2010, and not 2010 October 15 as the article said. Still we do write 2010-10-15 or 2010.10.15 if you like that better. We write different when we write letters and numbers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.50.105 (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time_in_the_United_States

...contains this false statement:

"Phoenix and Tucson are hotter than any other large U.S. metropolitan area during the summer..."

Las Vegas is hotter than Tucson during the summer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.35.52 (talk • contribs) 21:18, April 24, 2010

Tagged in that article. Thank you for the comment, but the article talk page would have been a better place. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Currently Central Time Zone (North America) aka Central Time Zone (Americas) is different from UTC−06. In my opinion there are two possibilities

• a) Central Time Zone (Americas) should be limited to what is normally known as "CST/CDT". In that case the word "Americas" has nothing to do, because in the Southern Hemisphere daylight change is done in the opposite months. The name should be Central Time Zone (North America), and any references to South America or Easter Island should be deleted or at least minimized.
• b) Central Time Zone (Americas) applies to the whole region; see [6]; in that case Central Time Zone (Americas) is a synonym of UTC−06 and both articles should be merged.

I don't think this is a desirable situation, and if the merge is approved (i.e. if the sentence Time Zone name applies to whole region is considered to be true) then other merges should be done, such as Mountain Time Zone and UTC−07.

Please say your opinion in Talk:Central Time Zone (Americas)#Name_change or Talk:Central Time Zone (Americas)#To merge or not to merge Esmito (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The page about the analemmatic sundial has an incorrect interwiki; the other languages are about the noon mark, not the analemmatic sundial.--Carnby (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The article Roman numerals has a section on why clock faces are often labeled somewhat inconsistently with IIII for 4 and IX for 9 (as opposed to either IV and IX or IIII and VIIII). There is a long outstanding OR tag on this section and indeed some of the possible explanations are speculative and most are unsourced. Since this issue is really more to do with clocks than math I was hoping that someone from this project could take a look at it.--RDBury (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I posted this in the article talk page a couple of months ago, but as no one has replied I am cross-posting here.

Why is this article rated "high importance"? It is an obscure theory not supported by mainstream physics. The concept has no visibility to the public at large and the article averages only about 200 hits per day.

SpinningSpark 16:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. I don't know why it's "important", either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the template, but I am well aware how to fix things myself, I have done one or two Wikipedia edits in the past. I have brought this here because it is an assesment in this project's template on the article's talk page, not in the article itself. I am not a member of this project, nor am I a specialist in this project's subject. I would have thought that it was appropriate for someone from the project to make an assesment for the project. But as you don't seem to care, neither do I. SpinningSpark 01:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Think of it as WP:BRD. I doubt anyone will revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding Civil Twilight. One side is Civil Twilight should be moved to Civil Twilight (band) to make way for Civil Twilight to be a redirect to the section Civil Twilight in the article Twilight (Twilight#Civil_twilight). The other is to keep everything the way it, Civil Twilight doesn't get moved to Civil Twilight (band) and theres a message at the top giving a link to Twilight#Civil_twilight. The discussion is here Talk:Civil Twilight. I would like your opinion one this matter.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just created a short article on the British Liberal Member of Parliament Robert Pearce, who introduced the first daylight saving bill to the House of Commons in 1908. I don't have much further info on the topic, so thought I'd drop a note here in case anyone is in a position to expand the article a bit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi.

I am new to this and I am sure I may be doing something wrong. I hope that I am not. I have been reading up on Sidereal time. I believe the image showing relationship of the earth and the sun may not be accurate. From reading the article I gather a sidereal day is shorter than a solar day. Therefore a sidereal day should end a few minutes earlier than a solar day. The image indicates a solar day ends before a sidreal day end. Am I reading the image incorrectly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.78.77.253 (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The image at Sidereal time#Sidereal time and solar time is meant to show that after the Earth has made a full rotation with respect to the stars, and the sidereal day is complete, it has not rotated enough to make the sun directly overhead. The Earth must rotate a little more to make a full solar day. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Per RFC page; this should interest your project. Morton Shumway (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC).

As per the current naming convention on articles on country time zones (i.e. Time in XXX), shouldn't the article Singapore Standard Time be renamed Time in Singapore? Wanted to point this out. I'm rather busy, so if you need a reply from me, just contact me at my talk page. Thanks, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 13:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone come up with a list of notable cuckoo clock manufacturers (preferably with articles) that can be used to populate List of cuckoo clock manufacturers? At the moment it consists purely of external links, and therefore meets WP:CSD#A3, but I'm reluctant to hit the zap button if it can be improved instead. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Time articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As requested, I have responded to Wikipedia_talk:Version_0.8#Better_version_of_Greenwich_Mean_Time, and updated the revisionID accordingly. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we should consider merging {{Birth year and age}} → {{Birth date and age}}, and {{Death year and age}} → {{Death date and age}}. Right now, {{Birth year and age}} demands year, and month is optional, while {{Birth date and age}} demands year, month, day. Why not have one single template, that only demands year, while both month and day are optional? Same with {{Death year and age}}. —bender235 (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, BC has been requested to be renamed, see Talk:BC 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team.

I'm posting across WikiProjects to engage you, the community, in working to build Wikipedia not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Please visit the Contribution Team page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 18:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discordian calendar (2nd nomination) since it is an article of interest for this project. Jaque Hammer (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Note, several AH year articles have been PRODded for deletion. 65.93.14.29 (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Seemingly all AHs have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/320 AH . 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The related Category:Common Era has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

An IP editor has today been trying to introduce changes to suggest that sunrise and dawn are identical, and similarly for sunset and dusk. Template:Parts of a day makes the accepted situation pretty clear, with twilight between, and the various articles have for years shown a difference. Is there any agreement with the IP's proposed changes? - David Biddulph (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

{{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The usage of Instant is under discussion, see Talk:Instant. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am proposing to add a new Wikipedia article that will fall under both the economics and human development subsections of the WikiProject Time. The main page will be titled Work Intensity and will have four subsections: multitasking, time poverty, health implications, and policy considerations. I feel that this new page fits well within the Time project and its subsections. The multitasking and time poverty subsections fit in well with the economics subpage, and the health implications and policy considerations sections fit in well with the human development subpage. The new article will drawn upon a number of sources with an emphasis on the journal Feminist Economics as they published a special edition focusing on time poverty this past July 2010. My goal in adding this page is to expand the knowledge of work intensity and poverty in the developing world. Current pages on multitasking and time use do not address the developing world. This new page will address these concerns and have a more inclusive definition of multitasking and time use than current pages.

Zpanos (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wikiproject Timers - I'm dealing with an article whose subject spans the end of the c19th in Russia through to the post-revolutionary period in the Soviet Union, which makes use of the OldStyleDate template, in order to give dates in both date-formats. I see from Old Style and New Style dates that the difference between the two changes for dates in each century, with a 12-day difference in the 19th and a 13-day difference in the 20th. Could somebody please clarify: what is the day difference in the year 1900? For 1899, it is 12 days, while for 1901 it is 13 days. The article isn't clear (the table giving the differences shows 1800-1900: 12 and 1900-2000: 13). Many thanks for your assistance. DionysosProteus (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Re the above query which I just happened on, this is the answer to your enquiry:

To find how many days the Gregorian calendar is ahead of the Julian in any year from 301BC (the calendar is proleptic up to AD1582) add 300 to the year, multiply the hundreds by 7, divide by 9 and subtract 4. Ignore any fraction of a day.^[1]. See below for an explanation of the proleptic calendar. When the difference between the calendars changes the calculated value applies on and from March 1 (Gregorian date) for conversions to Julian. For earlier dates reduce the calculated value by one. For conversions to Gregorian the calculated value applies on and from February 29 (Julian date). Again, for earlier dates reduce the calculated value by one. The difference is applied to the calendar you are converting into. A negative value indicates that the Julian date is ahead of the Gregorian date. In this case, be careful, when calculating the Gregorian equivalent of February 29 (Julian), to remember that February 29 is discounted. Thus if the calculated value is -4 the Gregorian equivalent of this date is February 24. Before AD1 use astronomical years rather than years BC. The astronomical year is (year BC) - 1.

Regards. 92.24.110.78 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The usage of Weeks is under discussion, see Talk:List of people with surname Weeks. 65.94.47.217 (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The wiki page on the Sothic Cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sothic_cycle has an error in its first sentence. It now states "The Sothic cycle or Canicular period is a period of 1,461 ancient Egyptian years (of 365 days each) or 1,460 Julian years (averaging 365.25 days each)." It should read "The Sothic cycle or Canicular period is a period of 1,461 years (of 365.2422 days each) or 1,460 Julian years (averaging 365.25 days each).

Robert Tulip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.221.232 (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Multiplying years and days/year of the article statement yields 533,265 days for both Egyptian and Julian years. But 1461 years times 365.2422 days each (a tropical year) yields about 533,619 days, which is certainly not 533,265 days for 1460 Julian years of 365.25 days each. — Joe Kress (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The article Newcomb's formula has been nominated for deletion. Your expert recommendations are welcome as to whether this is a notable topic deserving an article by itself, or should redirect to another article – and if so, which one.  --Lambiam 19:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Per the rules at WP:OTD, Equinox is going to be omitted from Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 23 this year because it requires maintenance. I realize that it has been included in years past, but we have been making an effort to tighten up the rules. You'll notice that it was skipped for the March equinox 2011 as well. There are over 6 weeks to go, so hopefully that gives editors enough time to take care of this. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 19:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm contemplating nominating Calendars of 2005, Calendars of 2006, Calendars of 2007, and Calendars of 2008 for deletion at AFD. Since those pages are in this project's jurisdiction, I thought it wouldn't hurt to ask here first if anyone had any thoughts about those pages, or wanted to explain to me why they shouldn't be nominated. (I'm actually pretty open to convincing in this matter, and would rather hear it now than after posting the AFD.) Below is what I had planned to write at AFD before deciding to hold off a bit longer:

For the genesis of this project, see this 2005 VPP discussion. Seems like an idea that made more sense in 2005 than it does on today's Wikipedia. The 2005 page includes Gregorian, Chinese, and Islamic calendars; pages for subsequent years include only a Gregorian calendar (2008 stops after May). Given that List of calendars lists 30+ kinds of calendars as "in use", and the 2005 page is already 71k, this seems like an impractical way of presenting information that's almost entirely included elsewhere, at Portal:Holidays/Calendar, other pages and lists linked from that portal, and in Wikipedia's pages for specific days, months and years. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

With no objection here, I'm probably going to go ahead with the nomination on Monday or soon afterward. Theoldsparkle (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of the images using the hue4map unified coloring system, the hue repeats every 6 hours, longitude= 0 -> hue=0 (red). Thus UTC, UTC+6, UTC+12, UTC-6 all use red. UTC+1, UTC+7, UTC+13, UTC-5 all use yellow. Using a unified color system allows the reader to easier recognize offsets, and reduces the number of colors used on a page like UTC+3, where maps from Europe, Russia and Africa are shown.

UTC-06:00   UTC-05:00   UTC-04:00   UTC-03:00	UTC+00:00   UTC+01:00   UTC+02:00   UTC+03:00	UTC+06:00/+12   UTC+07:00   UTC+08:00   UTC+09:00

TZ master (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps someone from this project could have a look at this list. An editor is breaking it up in a whole load of small articles and I'm not sure that is the best way to proceed. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This editor is making things more cumbersome and I am against his unilateral changes. Please see Daylight saving time by country#Table is thoroughly confusing and unhelpful. Elizium23 (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

6 a.m. first hour 7 a.m. second hour 8 a.m. third hour 9 a.m. fourth hour 10 a.m. fifth hour 11 a.m. sixth hour 12 p.m. (noon) seventh hour 1 p.m. eighth hour 2 p.m. ninth hour 3 p.m. tenth hour

The original writer made a very common mistake be simply subtracting 1500 hours minus 600 hours and assumed, therefore, that 3 p.m. had to be the ninth hour when, in fact, it is the tenth hour. This may invalidate the entire etymological explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.122.6 (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thought you all might be interested in taking part in the Request for Comment on this subject at Talk:2011#Request_for_Comment:_Mohamed_Bouazizi_and_the_Occupy_movement_additions. Wrad (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear WikiProject Time members, User:John_b_cassel and myself have started a proposal for a WikiProject on Foresight and Futures! Please come and take a look on the WikiProject Council proposals page[7] if this sounds interesting to you! We appreciate any tips and help! Zhanli2012 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought WP had a standard for pm vs. PM. If so, what is it? Varlaam (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:MOSTIME. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Good Post Meridiem, Jc3s5h.

That's it. Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed the following articles about, or closely related to, the various forms of solar time:

• Solar time
• Universal time

• Coordinated Universal Time

• Local mean time
• Time zone
• Earth's rotation
• Civil time

I suspect there are others I have not noticed. I propose we trim down this list and coordinate the treatment of topics among the topics in order to minimize information that is redundant among articles, contradictory, and extensively treated in one article while superficial in another. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Local mean time could be deleted and the content added to another article. The rest all seem to refer to distinct subject areas and all we need to do is ensure that there are no conflicts between them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Civil time could also be incorporated into another article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Or Time zone into Civil time. —Tamfang (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Having just read both articles, 95% of the Local mean time is covered in the article about Railway time. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that Earth's rotation is in a different category, being primarily about a physical phenomenon. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to use the dob and dod templates in an infobox for the first time, but I think there is a confusing duplication of some sort with names being nearly identical. Can {{Death-date and age}} and {{Death date and age}} be merged, or at least have the documentation explain what the hell is the difference? The similarly naming of these templates is discouraging and I'm not even sure how to sort it out. Guidance would be appreciated. Rgrds. --64.85.220.22 (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we tell our readers what the differences is, between a time zone and a UTC time offset?

• Maybe they are the same thing, and the UTC system is better because it's internationalized and uses positive and negative numbers
• Maybe they are different, and a time zone is an area where everyone uses the same standard time or daylight saving time (with notable exceptions), while a time offset is the current difference in hours and minutes from Coordinated Universal Time for a particular time zone

Do we really need two sets of article, one on the time zones like Eastern Time Zone (e.g., New York City) and another on the UTC offsets? --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

List of chronometers on HMS Beagle has been nominated as a Featured List candidate. Please give your view on this nomination at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of chronometers on HMS Beagle/archive1. SpinningSpark 08:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Several of your problems here, the #Daylight saving time by country, the existence of the UTC+nnnn articles alluded to in #Time Zones and Time Offsets, and the Time in Singapore article discussed in /Archive 2#Singapore Standard Time should be renamed Time in Singapore?, are all apparently down to one person operating a bunch of sockpuppets for over five years.

Please read the administrators' noticeboard and consider what to do with:

• the "Time in …" articles
• the "Daylight saving time in …" articles
• everything in Category:tz database/Category:IANA time zone database

Uncle G (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have made a new feed for the New Article bot. The bot reads all the new articles for a day and puts suspected Watches-related articles into User:AlexNewArtBot/WatchesSearchResult, the articles are suppose to be manually put into the portal page and/or removed if irrelevant. Or whatever you want to do with them.

The list of rules are in User:AlexNewArtBot/Watches, there is also the log on the User:AlexNewArtBot/WatchesLog explaining the rules that sent an article to the search results (the log is cleared every day, so try to look into the history of the log). Please contact me if you are interested in the fine tuning of the rules

That is all. Any suggestions are welcome.--Racklever (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Lots of timezone articles (I think most of those linked in the body of {{Timezones}}) are using redlinked templates deleted via CSD G5 in their infoboxes. I'm not sure whether undeleting those templates would be desirable; and, if not, what the best way forward would be, so it'd be good if someone more clued-up could take a look. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

While stub-sorting I've found Worai, created almost exactly a year ago, total content: "Worai is the first month of the Afghan Calendar. It starts with the beginning of the spring season." and a navbox template to the other 11 months, {{AfghanMonths}}. The template's link "Afghan Calendar" redirects to Iranian calendars, and the names used for this set of 12 month stubs appear to be different transliterations of the names in the "Afghan Pashto" column of the table at Iranian_calendars#Month_names ("Wray" for "Worai", etc). These month listings in the table don't link to the set of 12 stubs. But, on looking, the top left item in the table doesn't link to the article Farvardin (created 2007 and still pretty minimal, though longer than Worai and co.)

If the set of Afghan month stubs are to be useful, they should presumably be linked from that table... and perhaps given redirects under the spellings used there... I leave it to a calendar enthusiast to pick up the ball at this stage, I've done as much as I'm interested in doing, by sorting that stub and telling you about it. Perhaps all the month names should just redirect to Iranian calendars, from both (all?) transliterations? Good luck. PamD 22:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've copied this note to Talk:Iranian calendars too. PamD 22:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we add this to the Wikiproject Time? Since time capsules have a tendency to get lost I think it's important we track them them better by recording their install and open dates. I encourage others to add to this timeline. If you need some suggestions as to where to look, I have some. Just reply to this talk.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

An intended purpose of this timeline, is to print it out and have them placed as a content item in upcoming time capsule installs to inform people of the future about other time capsules due to be opened - thus reducing the lost time capsule problem. Also it should be considered that this method will also preserve and tell people of the future about Wikipedia.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved user - This strikes me as borderline WP:WWIN. Wikipedia doesn't seem like the best place for every person burying a time capsule to come and log the capsule information. There are probably better places for that sort of information. I would definitely seek out the opinions of active WP:Time members and maybe some admin users to reach some consensus about where this would stand in regards to WP:WWIN. ZybthRanger ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you might be right ZybthRanger. But before I pick up my sticks and go somewhere else, I'll give this topic a little more time for feedback from the editors here at this WP. --Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see my previous talk section. By using this technique we can tell people of the future whether in 50 year, hundreds or whatever about what we did here at Wikipedia. Somebody please tell me how we can get this added as a project. I'm involved in some time capsules that are to be installed and sealed in the near future.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to the page. Take a peek and see what we are doing with it. Time Capsule Timeline--Ourhistory153 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see here if interested. Although it's a well-written article, it's very long (112.36kB), so editors are considering which bits to split into new or existing articles. Maschen (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit redundant to have both Daylight saving time by country and Daylight saving time by region and country? I get that one is supposed to be more concise, but on top of the general Daylight saving time in Country X and Daylight saving time in Continent Y AND the timezone specific articles I think we are getting too much redundancy and maintenance overload. I'm fine with the country level and continent level articles (although a case could be made that even the continent level is redundant if we have a global overview). But surely we only need one global overview article which can then link to the country and continent level articles as need be? Peregrine981 (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Talk:Daylight saving time in Europe where there is a proposal to merge Daylight saving time in Europe into European Summer Time as the articles are duplicious and European Summer Time is the correct title. Arjayay (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This article's talk page has a project tag and an assessment from this project, but I have to question whether it is actually within its scope other than simply having the word "time" in the title. Time signatures are part of music theory, not temporal theory, and it is actually the tempo that dictates at what speed a piece of music is played and therefore how long it will take to play it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm Georges Theodosiou and few minutes ago changed topic title "Rationale" in article "UTC" to "Rotational". Somebody changed back to "Rationale" and then i changed again to "Rotational". I think it is the proper title. Anyway if somebody changes it again I will not change for third time. My email is chretienorthodox@hotmail.fr With regards and friendship Georges Theodosiou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.2.147.170 (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you're wrong. It's only the rationale for leap seconds, but it's not "rotational". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking for help on some articles from someone who has an interest in Swiss watches. The article Certified chronometer and Chronometer watch are largely duplications. It seems to me that the material about COSC certification should be in an article with a title like COSC certified chronometer because other groups have certified chronometers over history. It also appears to me that the articles should recognize that the word "chronometer", while it has a specific meaning when applied to Swiss watches, in general means a device for accurately measuring time. There are a number of such devices listed at Chronometer (disambiguation). I am hopeful that an editor with an interest in this area might work on this issue. I'd be happy to help. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

An request for comment at Talk:Computus#Addition to table, claiming regular pattern has not attracted attention. Rather, edits of the same sort have continued with no one paying any attention. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I just made some edits to Epoch (reference date) but I'm not sure how to correctly handle a reference to a subsection within a technical document. I've just left it fairly raw, can someone advise? Dan Shearer (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hope that nobody minds but I have decided to add my USERNAME to this project group - hope that I can help. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Anno Mundi#Choice of era style about which era style (BCE/CE, BC/AD or a hybrid) to use in the article Anno Mundi which is about dating systems that use the biblical creation of the world as a starting point. Your input is desired. Thank you, SchreiberBike (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The usage of Central Time Zone is up for discussion, see Talk:Central Time Zone (North America) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It recently occured to me that it is stupid to have the solstice not in line with the dates set for the middle of winter and summer In Australia we had our winter solstice on June 21st. In Australia we regard June,July and August as the winter months. Surely then the winter solstice should occur in the middle of this period being the 16th July. We are out by 25 days. We could correct this by having 2 June months next year. If we can correct for the currently understood 1/4 of a day a year, thus having a leap year, why can't we do this and have a leap month. I suppose alternatively we could just rename the seasons months. For example Australian winter months are June, July and August and possibly we should just change them to May June and July ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngreay (talk • contribs) 05:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not a matter for Wikipedia. Both the date of the solstice and the definitions for "summer" are defined in the real world, and we cannot change them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Missing years (Jewish calendar). Looks like OR, any more expert input ? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there needs to be an article on Traceable time. Time and frequency transfer seem to be article that comes closest to this topic. ~KvnG 10:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been going through the UTC item offsets (west to east), attempting to reduce confusion over the concepts of time zone and time offset. As I understand it, a time offset is the quantity of time subtracted from or added to Coordinated Universal Time for a particular time zone. Much of the Northern Hemisphere uses two different time offsets: one for standard time (winter) and the other for "daylight saving" (summer).

A time zone, on the other hand, is a region where a particular time offset is used.

I've noticed a large number of references in Wikipedia articles which blithely ignore (or blur) this distinction. Particularly, there has been the frequent reference to a UTC time offset as if it were a time zone. Perhaps this is due to the idea that keeping the same standard time all year is the norm, and that snooty, upper-crust Europeans and North Americans are doing something dastardly and sneaky (and should be punished). It may simply be due to the observation that the gores correspond to time offsets. Who knows?

I just want to reduce the confusion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've written a short piece which I propose to transclude into Time zone, Time offset and any other article which needs this explanation:

{{Time zones and time offsets}}

I hope this is helpful. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If anybody agrees or disagrees with my idea of amplifying the distinction between the UTC offsets and the time zones which observe them, please let me know. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


There is a need for a clear explanation and distinction (and naming) between a ...

• "TimePoint", which is an absolute unambiguous point in time (Ex: 2014-06-13T12:42:28.123+01:00 (ISO 8601))
• "LocationTimeOffset" as a description of the time offset at a specific geographic location/point at a specific "TimePoint". A TimePoint is needed since time offset varies with time (perhaps something like this: "UTC+02:00@2014-06-13T12:42:28.123+01:00"
• "PoliticalTimeZone", that describe the handling of time in a specific "political" area. This would be the normal TimeZone we set for a country or a region in a country.
• "UTC-offset" in the generic meaning of an offset from UTC, without referring to a specific area, location, daylight-saving or anything else. (UTC+02:00)

Also there need to be a clarification so it is clear that for example DayLight Savings time does not affect the PoliticalTimeZone but it do affect LocationTimeOffset and the way you write a TimePoint.

Hundred (word) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been proposed to be merged into 100 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see talk:100 (number) for the discussion -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits by @Chandramohan lodha: as they over wrote random paragraphs with random words. It may have been a mistake rather than vandalism. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of the decade articles, basically from 1920s onward, violate many Wikipedia quality policies, from having original research to lack of references to indiscriminate collections of information to not representing a global view and only focusing on aspects of Western culture. In short they are a disaster and represent the worst Wikipedia has to offer. And for the most part they have been destroyed by drive-by IP edits, which is why I always have and always will hate IPs. Of course, few people care about these articles as they are low visibility and no one wants to take the time to overhaul their structure and improve their content, but I just wanted to throw it out there. I have taken the liberty of removing the indiscriminate listings of random people and things from 1980s onward to at least give a semblance of quality, but I don't really have the time to do much more in terms of quality content. They are just some of many articles that have slipped through the cracks unfortunately. Cadiomals (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Some U.S. states, especially Indiana, have interesting time zone status and history, and we have good articles on those. Other states, such as Massachusetts, are fairly boring and there is no article. I propose that for such states, we create redirects to articles on their time zones. Ma^t_chups 20:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to find a reliable source about these and any other African calendars, particularly 4 day week ones.

At the moment I can find little about the "extra day", it takes a day of the week, but it's not clear which month it comes after (or in). The same is true for leap-days, I'm certain the Yoruba calendar has one, since it always starts on 3 June, but not clear where it sits (ie. in or after a month, and if so, which month), and if it follows the Gregorian calendar accurately.

The Nri-Igbo year starts 18 February in Igboland but in other communities it may be a different date. The Igobo days of the week vary from place to place (equivalent to it being Tuesday in London, and Wednesday in Paris) and the names may vary as well.

Any help appreciated. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 00:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

I created a stub at Yesterday (time), improvements and corrections are welcome. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I found content concerning how solar time was used in the United States prior to time standardization. Since no other article seemed to discuss this content, I added it to this article on Local mean time. Out of curiosity, was there some sort of decision over the years that this project has existed as to why the history of time keeping (for lack of a better phrase) either has had no article or has no content that I've seen within the half dozen or so articles I've looked through within this project, including the main article, time? Leaving a message here, in case I missed something and/or I'm way off base. Wikipedia is a big place, and I usually stay at home in the meteorology project. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RFC:_Naming_of_one_and_two_digit_numbers_and_years PamD 14:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I have proposed merging British Summer Time to Time in the United Kingdom and redirecting British Summer Time to Western European Summer Time. The discussion could have implications on how time zones are treated on Wikipedia i.e. should there be separate articles on Portuguese, Irish and British summer times or a single one; bearing in mind that the rules used to be different but are not harmonised.

The discussion is at Talk:British Summer Time#Merge to Time in the United Kingdom. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Members of this WikiProject may wish to comment on the RFC Talk:ISO 8601#RFC: Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar? Jc3s5h (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As it is in the scope of your project, I thought I would inform you of the proposed merger of Apparent sun into Solar time. Discussion can be found here. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

While editing Barycentric Coordinate Time and Geocentric Coordinate Time and adding See also's between them, I realized the right way to link the various time standard pages together would be to have a Wikipedia:Navigation template for them, which is added to all of them and refers to all of them. Of course the question of just how to decide which articles are in and which aren't is probably the hard part. I'd guess we'd want to also include articles on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), Terrestrial Time (TT), International Atomic Time (TAI), Universal Time (UT) and perhaps others listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Time_scales. Is this the right place to discuss this? Do we have any template experts to help out? I thought this might be appropriate for the To-do list on this page, but I found it hard to even find what was on the to-do list (hint - don't click on the links that say To-do list. Click on "Show" on the right). So I put it here for now so it is more visible. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm - I see now that I totally missed the hidden templates like Template:Time_measurement_and_standards. I relied on my browser search to find references to e.g. Geocentric Coordinate Time from Barycentric Coordinate Time, and found nothing. That is both because the template was hidden, and because the template covers so many things that it doesn't spell out the actual article names, and shows just the abbreviations like TCG instead. So I think we want to show the templates by default in at least some of these articles. If it is considered too big to show, then I suggest having smaller templates which are not so distracting and confusing. I also think we should spell out the names, especially for cases where the abbreviation is hard to remember or figure out because it is in reverse order of the English name. But at least I've found the right place to discuss this, i.e. at Template_talk:Time_measurement_and_standards. Cheers. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Time for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) @ 18:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see the Talk:Julian calendar#RFC: Is the Julian a reform of Egyptian calendar? RFC about whether the Julian calendar is a reform of the Egyptian or Roman calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I am having a dispute over this edit. The article originally said:

How accurate the first verge and foliot clocks were is debatable, with estimates of one to two hours error per day being mentioned

supported by a reference to Willis Milham (1945) Time and Timekeepers. The edit in question added this:

although more recent evidence based sources mention achievable accuracies of minutes per day.

supported by these sources:

• W. Houtkooper “The Accuracy of the Foliot” Antiquarian Horology Vol. 20 No. One, Spring 1992
• M. Maltin “Some notes on the Medieval Clock in Salisbury Cathedral” Antiquarian Horology Vol. 20 No. 5, Spring 1993

I've read a number of books on medieval verge and foliot clocks, and although later verge and foliots were more accurate, I've never heard claims of that accuracy for the first (14th century) clocks. It sounds wrong to me. I don't have access to Antiquarian Horology. I wonder if someone with access to back copies could check the accuracy of these sources, or give other sources. Do they actually say the first primitive mechanical clocks, made with crude iron parts fabricated by blacksmiths, lubricated with animal grease, with no temperature compensation, in a dirty unheated church tower subject to day/night temperature swings of 30°F, really had accuracy of "minutes per day"? Thanks --Chetvorno^TALK 06:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll try again. Does anyone have sourced information on the accuracy of the first mechanical clocks, the verge and foliot clocks of the 14th century? Particularly the two articles mentioned above? This is for the article Verge escapement. Thanks in advance for any information. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Glrx has proposed deletion for Network Time Foundation. There are problems with this article. I have cancelled the proposal because I hope the article can be fixed. Most critical is the need to establish WP:NOTABILITY by adding a couple reliable secondary sources. Can anyone help with this? ~KvnG 15:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Christmas and holiday season has been proposed to be renamed, for the discusssion, see talk:Christmas and holiday season -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Compare stated scope note, content, and organization of winter solstice and summer solstice articles.

1. Winter includes helpful disambiguation scope note: "about the astronomical phenomena" — and ignores it. Summer does not, but should make article scope explicit.
2. Winter nonetheless includes confusing and crammed Infobox Holiday; summer does not.
3. Summer includes helpful solstice-equinox template; winter does not.
4. Winter gets reader lost in unnecessary, incomplete, and wavering sections on History and significance and Observances that are almost entirely lacking in citations to reliable secondary sources (as heavily noted) — an unmaintainable mess. Summer has no such nonsense; after inclusive citation (below), all controversial (non-astronomical) info relegated to large number of helpful links in Celebrations and See also sections.
5. Both rightly include single sentence summary reference to manifold cultural celebrations in lead, wikilinking to overviews (could be improved) and citing reliable secondary source. Thus:

Winter: "Worldwide, interpretation of the event has varied from culture to culture, but many cultures have held a recognition of rebirth, involving holidays, festivals, gatherings, rituals or other celebrations around that time." - "Winter Solstice celebrations: a.k.a. Christmas, Saturnalia, Yule, the Long Night, start of Winter, etc". Religious Tolerance.org.

Summer: "Worldwide, interpretation of the event has varied among cultures, but most recognize the event in some way with holidays, festivals, and rituals around that time with themes of religion or fertility. - "Summer solstice celebrations of Christianity, Judaism, Neopaganism, etc". Religioustolerance.org.

IMHO, summer solstice article has it right - delegate perennially controversial treatment of vast number of culturally diverse observances of uncertain origin and nature to specialized articles in Celebrations and See also sections, with some inline links, as just above.

Alternatively, organize and rewrite winter cultural info with reliable secondary sources, adding global coverage, culturally sensitive and neutral POV as you go; do same for all summer celebrations, unnecessarily duplicating content along the way. Prepare for a lifelong maintenance commitment to both solstice articles and all linked celebrations articles. As is, it looks like these two articles on astronomical phenomenon came from two different planets. Can we get started on bringing them into alignment? -- Paulscrawl (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've seen its banner on several pages, but I'm not quite sure what it means to improve time related... stuff. That sounds odd.

I checked the history page of this project and it seems like an IP simply created this 11 years ago, never edited the page again and now here you are Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 22:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:156.61.250.250 asserts that GMT is defined as, or corresponds to, UT1 in the articles "Coordinated Universal Time", "Universal Time", and Greenwich Mean Time". I, on the other hand, believe that GMT has been regarded as an obsolete term by the scientific community for many years, and that the scientific community does not provide any precise definition for it. Thus it may be used in the sense of the way GMT was found using the Airy transit circle in the late 19th and early 20th century (as Guinot did in his paper). Or one may observe that the time disseminated to the general public in the United Kingdom by the National Physical Laboratory is UTC (or perhaps UTC + 1 hour in the summer, depending how it is distributed), and that the general public calls the time they observe in civil life in the winter "Greenwich Mean Time", so GMT must be UTC. So I contend there are muliple meanings for GMT and it is wrong to single out UT1 as the one and only correct synonym for GMT. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Guinot, Bernard (August 2011). "Solar time, legal time, time in use". Metrologica. 48 (4): S181–185. Bibcode:2011Metro..48S.181G. doi:10.1088/0026-1394/48/4/S08. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Kollam Era to be moved to Kollam era. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see the discussion Wikidata is incapable of representing birth and death dates. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

See Template talk:Decades and years#Update August 2015. The template is presently used only in century articles in mainspace, although it was used in some 21st century decade and year articles until I removed it, and was used in century categories before removed by consensus. The history of use of the templates and subtemplates is unclear, but I'd like to clean it up, if there is no objection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of Fall is under discussion, see talk:Fall (disambiguation) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Using archives of Portal:Current events for month articles. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The template {{WikiProject Time}} automatically includes a to-do list that links to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Time/to do, so over 3000 talk pages link to it. I have not seen this practice with other wikiproject banners, and it is not clear that most editors of articles covered by this project have any need for it. Would there be any objections to removing the link? RockMagnetist(talk) 18:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No one responded in three weeks, so I will remove it. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Game clock to be moved to Chess clock. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Currently there are four articles regarding time in Korea. There is Korea Standard Time and Time in South Korea that relate to South Korea as one set, and Pyongyang Time and Time in North Korea that are related to north Korea. I cannot see the purpose of having two articles for each country, since each is geographically small and each within one time zone. Further, each "Time in X Korea" page consists of only two sentences. So I have proposed mergers here for South Korea and here for North Korea. I am placing this notice here as the relevant Project page. Regards, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There has been no objections in over a month so I will perform the merges. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Evensteven (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Just-in-Time Manufacturing to be moved to Just-in-time manufacturing. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

I have removed this article from this project. ~Kvng (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Water clock to be moved to History of the water clock. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Planting season and Sowing season have been nominated for deletion -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I have marked this project inactive. The last time someone posted a comment here and someone different responded was in July 2013. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that's fair :) ~Kvng (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks can sometimes be deceiving, though. I saw this when it was posted, and several other things I took note of also. I thought I'd just leave a note now to indicate that this project is not completely moribund. I joined because the subject area of time overlaps other interests and considerations of mine, and I expect to continue to participate in articles and issues that fall in this domain, as the occasion arises. Perhaps there are other editors around here who do likewise, even if they have not found much of anything to comment on at this page, as I hadn't. Evensteven (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not about to be deleted, so don't worry. Maybe someone will revive it. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries. And even the page itself can serve as a drawing point for related issues, which might attract activity as well. Evensteven (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised something as mainstream as "time" became inactive. --Binaryhazard (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist: @Kvng: @Evensteven: @Binaryhazard:I have changed the status of this w-proj to semi-active and I have also added an Article alerts section. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Peter SamFan has changed it to inactive. I would like to see this reverted to semi-active. We had a new editor join in March. Welcome Brateevsky! ~Kvng (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for September 1913 (month) to be moved to September 1913. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

I have removed this article from this project. ~Kvng (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kvng: Now, the WikiProject Time template has been restored on Talk:September 1913 (month), because you reverted the edit to the template by George Ho, making it no longer pointless. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it really intended that the scope of this project include timeline articles like this? Technically the article does appear in the Category:Time heirarchary but it seems like this type of article is better handled by Wikipedia:WikiProject Years or Wikipedia:WikiProject History. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Time/Archive 2 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The sub-categories listed on the category page are not in alphabetic order. "S" and "T" are either side of "L" and when I piped one sub-cat to "M", that preceded "A"! I've reported it to the village pump technical page after trying unsuccessfully to solve it myself. If anyone here can work it out, please do. It could well be something simple but I can't see it. Thanks. BoJó | talk UTC 14:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the context of your comment, but perhaps my comment titled '"Rational" time format' referring to sorting, is relevant or even helpful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sequential_time
Wikidity (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Recently when I was editing the page Time in China, I noticed three of those zones are actually not listed in those regional files themselves but are instead in the backzone file for backward compatibility. I have moved them in a table ib a subsection, is this a good enough treatment? C933103 (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Time/Archive 2/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Time.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Time, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Since the 20th century "officially" began on January 1, 1901 and ended on December 31, 2000, which timeline section heading style is best, i.e. most accurate and least confusing for readers?

• Style #1: 1800s/ 1900s/ 2000s
• Style #2: 19th century/ 20th century/ 21st century, with the year 1900 in the 19th century
• Style #3: 19th century/ 20th century/ 21st century, with the year 1900 in the 20th century

-- M2545 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is appropriate for this project (Wikipedia:WikiProject Timelines seems better), but 3 is the only choice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

(I started a comment here and saved it half-done at 21:12, 9 July 2017‎ (UTC) to think about it. By the time I decided not to add it, Jc3s5h had added their comment of 21:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC). Fortunately, that comment doesn't depend on mine. Sorry for any confusion. --Thnidu (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC))

Nobody is in charge of this. Like other matters of English meaning and usage, it is a matter of consensus among English speakers. There is no clear consensus about whether 1900 is in the 19th or 20th century. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: In informal usage, no; in precise usage, the standard is clear: 2000 ended the 20th century, and 2001 began the 21st. And an encyclopedia needs to be precise. (I remember the 20/21 dispute quite well, which is why I'm starting with it.)
From Century § Debate over century celebrations:

Strictly speaking, centuries begin with years ending with "01" as its last two digits and end with "00". In common usage however, a new century is often held to begin with significant digits rolling over meaning that centuries begin with "00" and end with "99". For example, strictly speaking, the 20th century runs from 1901-2000, but common usage refers it to be the years 1900 and 1999 presumably because they all contain years starting with "19".

...
[Two of the "viewpoints" discussed there]:

Viewpoint 2 ["the xxes" instead of "the xxth century"]

2 BC	1 BC	1	2	3	4	5	...	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	...	198	199	1900	1901	1902	...	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	...	2098	2099	2100	2101	2102	2103	...	2198	2199
		0s (99 years only)										100s							1900s						2000s							2100s

Viewpoint 3: In astronomical year numbering and popular culture

-2	-1	0	1	2	3	4	...	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	...	198	199	1900	1901	1902	...	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	...	2098	2099	2100	2101	2102	2103	...	2198	2199
		1st century										2nd century							20th century						21st century							22nd century

There is a year 0 in the astronomical year numbering. But popular culture doesn't notice that since there was no Gregorian year 0, this "1st century" would have only 99 years and not be a century at all.

--Thnidu (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I edited the articles Time in Massachusetts, Time in New Hampshire, Time in Maine, and Time in Rhode Island. These articles originally were one-paragraph articles mentioning failed bills to switch to Atlantic Time. I added an additional paragraph to each of these mentioning when solar noon was. I used the same two sources on all four pages: a map of the world showing how far ahead or behind solar noon is from regular noon and an interactive website where you can click anywhere and see when sunrise, sunset, and solar noon are. Should this information be included in the other states, or should my four edits be undone, or something else? HotdogPi 14:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the term for what you're trying to express is local mean time. "Solar time" is likely to be interpreted as apparent solar time. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

week(date) = (ordinal(date) - weekday(date) + 10) / 7; A result table for the first week of January:

1 = 1 - 1 + 10 / 7
1 = 1 - 2 + 10 / 7
1 = 1 - 3 + 10 / 7
1 = 1 - 4 + 10 / 7
0 = 1 - 5 + 10 / 7 // previous year
0 = 1 - 6 + 10 / 7 // previous year
0 = 1 - 7 + 10 / 7 // previous year

Sorry for adding this to the talk page, I should have done the above before asking. Jon.busenkell (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)jon.busenkell@gmail.com

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Greenwich Mean Time#RFC: Explain obsolete nature of GMT in the lead? Jc3s5h (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, this is my first interaction with WikiProject Time. I would like to classify, and acknowledge, Wikipedia article in the social sciences that are focused on time. I would put these articles under the subcategory 'science'. Most of my knowledge is in sociology, so I will begin there. Regarding the classification system, is quality & importance of an article relative to other social science articles about time or relative to other time articles in general?

I am absolutely new as a Wikipedia collaborator. So, advice and critiques on my work is appreciated. I am excited to work on this project.

--Mrejsearch (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)mrejsearch 10/14/2018

today i want to know what will happen in the future? what will change? What won't? How will we do things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.233.49 (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Epoch (date reference)#RFC:Undiscussed page move. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Autumn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Autumn until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Winter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Autumn (it's a bundled nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Time is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Time until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Chronology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Chronology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I have nominated Upside down year article for speedy deletion under WP:A7 with the justification that this topic is not notable, and thus does not belong in an encyclopedia.

Additional problems with this article include:

1. WP:SOURCE There are no sources for most of the claims in this article.
2. WP:V With no sources, let alone verifiable ones, most of these claims cannot be verified.
3. WP:OR I suspect most of the content of this article was justified by WP:CK but are not common knowledge. While the subject is certainly one many school children discovered on their own, once they move on to secondary school, the subject likely never comes up again.

I have also indicated the above on the article's Talk page. I am posting here because the Talk page indicates the article is of interest to your project.tsilb (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Equinox#RfC on season-specific redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The IANA Timezone Database (https://www.iana.org/time-zones) uses the term "representative location" for identifiers like "America/Boise". However, the identifiers are referred to as "timezones" in various Wikipedia articles.

This creates confusion, as a representative location is not a timezone. The IANA identifiers represent historic changes to timezone offsets and daylight saving rules for a particular location or administrative area. Other places that have the same history and rules can use the representative location to describe their own offset history without the TZ Database having to list every locality and administrative area world wide.

It's also common to have multiple representative locations that have different daylight saving history, and even standard offset history, within a single timezone. E.g. Australia/Brisbane, Australia/Sydney/, Australia/Melbourne and Australia/Hobart all are in the same timezone but all have different daylight saving history.

The difference between timezone and IANA representative location should be clarified in all Wikipedia articles. In particular the primary article titled "List of tz database time zones" should be "List of tz database representative locations". The difference can then be described as:

"A timezone is a region where the same standard offset from UTC is observed, approximately aligned with lines of longitude with variations for administrative convenience and practicality. A representative location contains the historic offset and daylight saving rule changes for a particular location or administrative area within a timezone. It can be used to describe the offset and daylight saving history of any other location with the same history."

Rgqld (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Ironically, I arrived here through a search for the common misspelling "timezone" (should be "time zone"). I've mostly focused on cleaning up the simple "timezone"->"time zone" cases so far. During my investigations, I have come across several cases where the representative location is misused as a time zone name and will likely go through and try to clean those up next. But, as you're aware, it can be tricky...often article text that mixes up locations and time zone names is also a little unclear about the author's actual intent.

If you're interested, I'd be happy to collaborate with you on untangling specific cases of this mistake. 3Todd (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Appple: I just declined Draft:Daylight hours by latitude for a WP:PROD because it is the wrong process, but I am not convinced that it should be deleted at all. The last AFC reviewer declined it as unsuitable citing WP:RAWDATA, but previous reviewers only thought it needed improving (better sourcing etc). We have lots of lists of "raw" data, List of tz database time zones for instance, and this one has the benefit that it will not need regular updates to maintain it. Anyone care to adopt this? I'm also not convinced that a previous reviewer was right to tell the editor to remove all the pictures. SpinningSpark 08:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The topic is already covered at Twilight#Duration and Daytime#Daytime_variations_with_latitude_and_seasons. Maybe a stand-alone article is desired, but this draft doesn't look a good starting point. ~Kvng (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a perfectly valid list article that contains detail not found in either of those pages. SpinningSpark 15:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I posted a question on the talk page for Lunar Calendar. It's about something I'd like to do in the article, but I don't want to do the work if it will ultimately be decided that it is unnecessary or not appropriate (original research?). But I wonder if people aren't watching that page. So, since that article is listed as being very important to this WikiProject, let me call attention here to my question there. I'd really like to know if anybody has anything to say. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Lunar_calendar#That_"popular_culture"_point. Editors may need more context for that discussion to proceed. ~Kvng (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Oops! I realize now, I posted my question, AND THEN I posted a comment. Actually, what I was looking to bring to people's attention here was the other Talk:Lunar_calendar#Table at "Length of the lunar month" revisited. I'd like to do some serious editing/expansion on a table in that article. But I want first to see if it might be deemed Original Research. Yeah, I should have provided more "context"--like the obvious link, for example. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't really see enough to support a standalone article for ISO 4031 but do see many incoming links. Would redirecting to ISO 8601 or the list of ISO surprise readers? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to ISO 8601 would work. It would work even better if ISO 8601 was improved to mention ISO 4031 in the lead. ~Kvng (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Daylight saving time for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 01:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

A great deal of work has gone into expanding, cleaning up and citing Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, so may I suggest that its classifications according to this wikiproject merit review. It is clearly no longer start class. Of course I don't expect this WP to pre-empt the GA process (unless of course someone would be kind enough to get two for the price of one and do the GA review: if not, then any suggestions or corrections that can be actioned while it is in the GAN queue would be most welcome). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm a graphic worker and is working on a svg version of UTC time map, it's supposed to be updated, easier to edit, not so heavy etc as from a request here. Unfortunately I have lost contact with Odder who was supposed to help me with feedback.
So now I'm asking here if someone with the appropriate knowledge could help me out with feedback. There are different versions out there from different times and it's hard for me without any knowledge to know what is correct, I know graphic's not the subject itself. There is a draft here, a png version of the svg, which I need feedback on as asked for in the request which you would need to read. I do hope someone here can help me, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Tiffany glass#Grand Central Terminal that may interest WikiProject members. Was Grand Central Terminal's south facade clock made of Tiffany glass? Weigh in at the link above. ɱ (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Maps show annexed territories not in the way they are recognized internationally. For example, article Time_in_Ukraine simply shows Crimea as part of Russia without any disclosure. That is misleading. The title also says "legal time" which is not correct. Any picture that shows annexed territories should at least mark the annexed territories in a way that indicates both internationally recognized borders and how it is de facto controlled to avoid giving any disinformation to the readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random74 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Random74 Well, actually I don't think the map was intended to show Crimea as part of Russia. What it is meant to show, I think, is that Crimea follows the same official time as Russia. There is something of a clarification (if one hunts for it) in the article in the history section, but I do think that as it stands, the clarification could do with a clarification. I think that point should be up in the opening section, where it basically says that all of Ukraine is on that one time zone. It could say that all of Ukraine follows the one time zone, if you don't count Crimea. And it could be worded in such a way as not to declare the Crimea is or isn't part of Ukraine. I might work on that when I have some time. Uporządnicki (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If the Arrow of time states that time is linear and mving forwards and, as such, all that has gone is fixed then does this mean that, if theoretical time travel existed, then an object travelling backwards would not in fact get any younger on moving backwards and would exist as in current form. Would this also mean that the theory of changing events in the past having an impact on the future events not actually be true?

Just a question

BannorTumble (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated History of timekeeping devices for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Evening 14,557 485 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Please could a subject expert review recent additions to UTC+01:00 and similar pages? The new level of detail may be excessive. Thanks, Certes (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The block-evading sock IP is evading current 1 month block on 118.71.137.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), & various other blocks. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

See also Talk:List of UTC time offsets. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Past, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Hello, I am unsure whether or not this is the correct place to ask: I created the above list and on the table it includes the date at which a country in Africa adopted its current time zone. Currently, after roughly two days of researching, I am still missing the DRC (west and east), Malawi and Rwanda. TimeAndDate.com does not have any data for them either, and I have looked through several books on time zone histories (including ones I own), scholarly articles and news and law archives of the respective countries, and I have only comeback empty handed thus far. I would really appreciate and be super thankful if anyone could find them or at least give me some leads. Thanks, LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: Is https://timezonedb.com/download or any of the references and external links in tz database useful here? Certes (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Certes: Thank you so muchhhh!!! The IANA mailing list had reliable sources for the DRC, as well as South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe (which I had previously cited with TimeAndDate, which is less reliable). You were very helpful! LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I have left a comment about the way that Template:Hijri month and Template:Hebrew month constructed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#About Template:Hebrew month and Template:Hijri month. If you are interested in the template, please see there. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI, a large number of Chinese time templates are up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 28 -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Term (time), I have suggested that the very short articles Term (time) and Time limit could be merged into a single broader and more substantial article about the human phenomenon of setting periods of time for the duration or accomplishment of tasks. I'd like to pitch this idea to this project for a determination of what would be the best title and scope for such a combined article. BD2412 T 02:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

In the Anywhere on Earth page, it refers to "The ISO standard only defines the end of an AoE day." Which ISO standard is this? Is it ISO 8601? Can someone clarify? Penyuan (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not ISO 8601. I have no idea what standard it might be. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)