Talk:Coordinated Universal Time

Coordinated Universal Time was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 14, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

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

Time High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Measurement (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Kill sub-section on "Daylight saving time" ?

The sub-section on DST (which should hyphenate daylight-saving) seems entirely irrelevant and misplaced. At best one might mention DST, in the preceding sub-section's discussion of time-zones and how they are expressed relative to UTC: it's something UTC doesn't do; and the examples of other zones expressed in terms of UTC can mention how DST affects a zone's offset from UTC. It does not warrant a section of its own, on this page. 84.212.163.209 (talk) Eddy

== Protected edit request on 16 May 2023 (2) =smamsmkakmskmakmskm Change:

{{Rcat shell|
{{R from initialism}}
}}

to mmmmmamkskma kmamksmkasmmksmasmkakskaskaksmsmamksmkasamksakskaksmamkskaskmakmsakaskasaskmaskmmasakskasmkasasasmkkaskakmskamsmkaa

{{Rcat shell|kkkkksmaskmkm maksmkasasaslasamksmaksmkmkskm mkmmkakakssmkamsamkakamksakskmamkaskaksasak mmakakmskmasmakmsmkaskamsmkaksamskaskasasmkamksmkakm mkmkamskmaskamsamskkma kmaammaamamkakmsma amskakak akmsakmmkasmk kkss ss m kksmksasmkaksamksmkmaks
{{R mentioned in hatnote}}öasamsmksamkmskmakmskmaskmamksk kmkmaskmaskmsasalsaskmkmsakmsamsakmsakslslasakmsaaskmasaslasalsasakmsamks
{{R from initialism}} kkmaskmamksamkskmakmsasaskaka ,makskmakm mkkmkmkmaskmaksmkmasalasasmasakm mkaksakmskmmmkakmmkmmkskmakmakmskasaksamskakmskmasmk
{{R printworthy}}
}}

amsmkkmsakm skakmskmaskmasslaslaasssamkskmasskmaakmsakmskmaskmasmk kskksmkaskmasmk kksskamskmaskmasaskasasaskmasamakamkkmamksasakskakmakmakms sslllasasasalalsamkasamkakmmkaskmskmaskmasslaslaslaslassalpapsaplaslalpsasmkakskmamsamkmasasmmkkm mkmkmkmkaskmaskmaskm (Add the 'mentioned in hatnote' and 'printworthy redirect categories) User:Ofe (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC) kksskmaksamksakmsmmkksmkmasmkakmskmakmskaskasakskakskaskaksakskasmakskmsaasmamksasakssmkkmamsk[reply]

I should have put it in code sourcing, but here's the code.

Change

{{Rcat shell|{{R from initialism}}}}

to

{{Rcat shell|{{R mentioned in hatnote}}{{R from initialism}}{{R unprintworthy}}}} OfTheUsername (talk) 21:16, 16sssasasaamkkmakmamask May 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed up the formatting of the proposed change so it's easier to parse. I +1 this change. SWinxy (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Izno (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[[Talk:UTC]] redirects to this talk page; presumably the intent was to request that [[UTC]], which is a redirect, be changed, not that Coordinated Universal Time, s sksk kssskwhich is not a redirect and to which those templates don't apply, be changed. Guy Harris (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

smsm kamksamamsaksaksmkakskmaskmkm mkamskmasmkakmkaskaksasasamsakmskmaskmasmkskmakmsaskaskkaksakmmksakmskskmak kskskkskmamkkmkmsmkasakskaskasaamskakmsakmamkamsamskmaskmas mkaksmakskaksamkskmakmsamskaksamksmkasakskasasmaskaksmakmksamkmkasamakamkas

Future

The Future section reeks of non-objective content. For instance, it is claimed that the proposed 2001 change is "drastic". I'm sure someone will argue that a yotto-second difference is "huge", but no reasonable person would find 6-7 hrs over 2600 years to be "drastic", imho. Worse yet, the 2022 *agreement* to eliminate the leap-second "by 2035" is completely missing!! Is this the "same" as the non-conference of 2023 that was cited? (several times.) Who ever is editing this either needs to do their due duty or step aside. By the way, I understand some of the issues involved in the loosening the coupling of atomic to orbital times (is there enough discussion here about the difference between the (fictitious) point through which the Earth passes to start another year and the (fictitious) point at which (supposedly) all points on the Earth (tectonics aside) "match" their cosmological orientation of previous year? Just a digression.) but it would be useful to understand or at least see a discussion about WHY people don't want the change AND why people DO want the change - both politically and technically. That's sorely lacking -it's called being objective.71.30.94.234 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'234:"Worse yet, the 2022 *agreement* to eliminate the leap-second "by 2035" is completely missing!!"

The CGPM resolution is mentioned, but the date was only in the citation, not the body of the article. I corrected that.

'234: "Is this the "same" as the non-conference of 2023 that was cited?"

That's a different organization, the ITU. The World Radiocommunication Conference of 2023 is scheduled for 20 November to 15 December 2023 in Dubai, UAE. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

The article states that English speakers originally proposed CUT, while French speakers proposed TUC. The compromise that emerged was UTC
But what about German and Danish people? Why were they not asked? Why only English and French? Konijnewolf (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source from NIST says

The ITU felt it was best to designate a single abbreviation for use in all languages in order to minimize confusion. For example, in English the abbreviation for coordinated universal time would be CUT, while in French the abbreviation for "temps universel coordonné" would be TUC. To avoid appearing to favor any particular language, the abbreviation UTC was selected.

So according to the source, English and French are just examples of possible language issues. One would have to dig through the literature of the International Telecommunications Union in the 1960s to find what proposals were actually made. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that phrasing similar to the present phrasing was introduced by Looie496 (talk · contribs) in October 2011. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article and added a quote by Dennis McCarthy about the origin of UTC. I eliminated unsourced claims that unnamed, unsourced English and French speakers made proposals. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jc. It looks better now. Konijnewolf (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]