Talk:Metric time/Archive 1

The changes made 128.171.106.205 by seem not to be NPOV. And the articles Hesit and Demur are almost exact copies of this one! The link he gives [1] goes to some nutty website. JNi 09:01 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Examples in Literature

Would it be appropriate to mention a science fiction novel that uses metric time (with seconds, kiloseconds, megaseconds, gigaseconds, teraseconds...)? The book is A Deepness in the Sky by Vernor Vinge.

If it's notable / significant, go ahead.  :-)

Alternate article

To whomever is replacing the current article with the alternate: please explain why you believe your article is more deserving of inclusion than the current article. -- Yitzhak 00:16, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I may have misread the article history, but as far as I can see the editor in question has only contributed to a limited number of related calendar/time articles, and appears to be POV-pushing original research related to Sekants time. I have attempted to include reference to this system in the article in an NPOV manner, however repeated changes keep POVing it again. --Gene_poole 00:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Sekants time" gets 2 real Google hits, both of which are the alternate article. It clearly fails the test of confirmability, so I'm taking it out. In light of other evidence, it can always be added it again. -- Yitzhak 00:55, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it does any harm to include a reference to Sekants time in this article - it is obviously a cogent system - even if it has no wide circulation. The simple fact is that no metric time system has wide circulation - so this one is no better or worse than others that are likely to be included here. --Gene_poole 01:01, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know that no system has wide adherence, but as far as I can tell, Sekants Time has no MENTION. If it is a minority opinion, that's one thing, but a vast minority of (as far as we can tell) one person is not what Wikipedia is intended for, right? Or can I also include mention to my SpiffyTime system (patent pending), which subdivides days into one million "spiffies"? Just because it's a cogent system doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia. The way I interpret it is this: if, in the course of research, you might come across mention of a term, and you wanted to look it up in Wikipedia, then it's Wikipedia-worthy (not always, but usually) - if there is no chance of me running into the term in this sense outside of Wikipedia (or similar sites where it may have been posted), then it does NOT belong here. Maybe I'm being a little reactionary, but I don't like it when people use Wikipedia for ego-stroking or theory-peddling. -- Yitzhak 02:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The terms "current article" and "alternate article" are relative; No person has sole editing rights to this, nor any other Wikipedia article. furthermore, the article in question should contain examples of metric time, under it's true definition, which is time measured using a single base unit and prefixes; Systems which do not match this precise definition should not be included in the article, whether in popular use or not. Any metric time system which may be properly defined as such, and has been publically proposed, is suitable for the article in question. I would suggest adding to the article, rather than creating an A/B situation.

Are you saying Swatch Internet Time isn't metric? Hmm... well, that may be true. Should it just be referenced in Decimal Time, then? If it's not properly metric (since it uses ".beats" and "days", I'm tending to think it's not), then it shouldn't be here. Does that sound fair? -- Yitzhak 02:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Swatch time is an example of decimal time (1 beat = 1 thousandth of a day), however decimal and metric are not always the same thing. the true test for whether a time system is metric should be: (A) does it use a single base time unit?; and (B) does it use metric prefixes?. if you can answer YES to both of these questions, then the system is metric. The French revolutionary clock was not truly metric, since there was no metric time unit defined at it's introduction, and metric prefixes were also not used at this time. The French Revolutionary clock IS at least Decimal, in any case.

That still doesn't give you the right to keep replacing an article with a poorly-formatted, typo-ridden piece of claptrap. Other than that, I agree with you, the French Revolutionary time should be in Decimal time, not metric.

Perhaps you could merge the two versions into a single coherent version, which includes the essential elements of both, and in suitable formating. I'm sure this would be acceptable to everyone, don't you agree?

This would be acceptable. However, it would be most advantageous to merge whatever it is you want to include into the current article. I simply say current because it seems to be the agreed upon version by everyone except you. If you'd like to bring in different POV, I implore you to be decent and add to the article, or remove irrelevancies, rather than simply pasting over it. It's very destructive and makes it much harder to take your additions seriously. -- Yitzhak 06:07, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)