Talk:Coordinated Universal Time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles	WikiProject Time	(Rated C-Class, High-importance)
	Time portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Comments: edit  · history  · watch  · purge Use of the term "frequency" in this article, although technically correct, is unfortunately adjacent to a reference to shortwave radio: "In 1956, the U.S. National Bureau of Standards started to use atomic frequency standards in generating the WWV time signals, named for the shortwave radio station which broadcasts them. In a controversial decision, the frequency of the signals was initially set to match the rate of UT, but then kept at the same frequency by the use of atomic clocks and deliberately allowed to drift away from UT." Suggestion: replace 'frequency' with the term 'tick rate', also used in the article, to clarify the sentence. I.e., ...generating the WWV time signals, named for the shortwave radio station which broadcasts them. In a controversial decision, the tick rate of the time signals... --71.10.226.43 (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC) To-do List: Here are some tasks you can do: Expand: Timeline Other: Vital Articles The Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team identified the following articles relating to Time as Vital: "for which Wikipedia should have a corresponding high-quality article, and ideally a featured article." Those marked with this icon: are also considered to be Core articles, "one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have." Their quality-scale rating as of February 2008 is listed alongside each: Calendar - B Clock - B Day - B History - B Month - B Second - B Time - B Week - B Year - Start Any help in improving these articles would not only further the efforts of WikiProject Time, but Wikipedia overall.

MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WPMeasureMeasurement articles	WikiProject Measurement	(Rated C-Class, Mid-importance)
	v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Measurement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Accessibility: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> | b2 <!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> | b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no> | b4 <!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> | b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> | b6 <!--Accessible --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Comments: edit  · history  · watch  · purge Use of the term "frequency" in this article, although technically correct, is unfortunately adjacent to a reference to shortwave radio: "In 1956, the U.S. National Bureau of Standards started to use atomic frequency standards in generating the WWV time signals, named for the shortwave radio station which broadcasts them. In a controversial decision, the frequency of the signals was initially set to match the rate of UT, but then kept at the same frequency by the use of atomic clocks and deliberately allowed to drift away from UT." Suggestion: replace 'frequency' with the term 'tick rate', also used in the article, to clarify the sentence. I.e., ...generating the WWV time signals, named for the shortwave radio station which broadcasts them. In a controversial decision, the tick rate of the time signals... --71.10.226.43 (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on December 21, 2004.

Archives
Archive 1

Contents 1 GMT is avoided in careful writing? 2 Most Recent Leap Second 3 page clock 4 dubious fact 5 Bogus example 6 Describe UCT

[edit] GMT is avoided in careful writing?

I don't agree with this statement "GMT is avoided in careful writing" in the introduction. It does not have a citation. On the Wikipedia page "Citing Wikipedia, "The Harvard Journal of Law and Technology has adopted the following format for citations to articles in Wikipedia:"

[Signal] Wikipedia, [article], http://en.wikipedia/wiki/[article] [(optional other parenthetical)] (as of [date], [time] GMT). Here is an example: See Wikipedia, Bluebook, http://en.wikipedia/wiki/Bluebook (describing history and application of the Bluebook) (as of Mar. 21, 2006, 20:50 GMT).

They seem to be partial to GMT. Nly8nchz (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to that that GMT is avoided in technical contexts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The second and third sentences currently give indistinguishable definitions of GMT and UT, and maybe they should be merged. The difference is that it encourages the use of UT ("if high precision is not required the general term Universal Time (UT) (without a suffix) may be used") but discourages "GMT" ("generally avoided in technical contexts"). The reference cited doesn't support that. The rationale given -- that it might mean either UT1 or UTC -- would seem to apply equally to UT. How about one sentence describing these synonyms, and if necessary, a second explaining any subtle difference that makes "UT" preferable? 71.139.177.112 (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the rational is that while GMT might be used by someone who has not kept up with the terminology, or who is deliberatly "dumbing-down" a text for consumption by the general public, UT is a deliberate indication that for the purposes at hand, the small differences in the various flavors of UT do not matter. I'm not sure if that rational actually works, but I think that is what the passage is trying to get across. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Most Recent Leap Second

The most recent Leap Second just occurred Dec 31, 2008. Should this be in the article (or is it and I missed it)? Pointless trivia that should not be included: 2008 was adjusted to be 366.000012 days long.wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 21:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] page clock

on some refreshes this does not work and shows some random time (it does have some preference for 10:50) and why is the date in YYYY-MM-DD ? Machete97 (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] dubious fact

Just to note that I've tried to clear up some loose/inaccurate language which seemed to be all that made the tagged 'fact' 'dubious' (see 1st para under 'History', about Greenwich and meridian conference). Terry0051 (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bogus example

I can't find any guarantee that the magic word CURRENTTIME, used below, is UTC. It seems likely that it would depend on the server's locale. As the locale is not necessarily UTC, and this example does not illustrate another part of the UTC standard, I have taken it off the article:

Gyro Copter (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I just checked, according to [1], the time generated is determined by the user preferences, defaulting to UTC. This cannot be trusted to always give UTC (presumably some users change their preferences). Gyro Copter (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• This was a useful utility. Could it be restored with a disclaimer that the time is dependent upon the user's preferences being accurately referenced to UTC? AusJeb (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC) (Well assuming my preferences are correct, and really assuming that any of this is correct, because ultimately, isn't this an arbitrary reference to an arbitrary reference used to mark the passage of time)

• I oppose presenting potentially false information, even with a disclaimer. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Describe UCT

The article doesn't mention the abbreviation UCT. It's a common (mis?)abbreviation used when discussing time zones. Searching for UCT time zone on Wikipedia or Google both refer to this page, I think the page should describe, or at least mention it.

Chei (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)