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.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles
Kill sub-section on "Daylight saving time" ?[edit]
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
I'm not sure how to fix it best, but both the second and third paragraphs of the mechanism section introduce the leap second which doesn't make sense. 184.57.147.234 (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree... it seems to separately define leap second multiple times. 75.65.48.35 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not done. Because the organizations that created, and currently maintain, UTC use both English and French, and because the word order in the corresponding names are different, UTC is a compromise abbreviation [citation needed] that does not follow the word order of either English or French. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has anyone said that? Greenwich Mean Time was renamed Universal Time by scientists in 1925, but unsurprisingly the general public continues to call it Greenwich Mean Time. So when the Royal Greenwich Observatory issues times which appear in diaries, almanacs and newspapers they follow suit. Around 1960 Universal Time was split into three versions - UT0, UT1 and UT2. When an offset was added to Atomic Time and leap seconds were introduced to make a new timescale "coordinated" to Greenwich Mean Time the obvious name to give it was "UTC". That raises the question - is the "Greenwich Mean Time" disseminated by the Royal Greenwich Observatory UT0, UT1 or UT2? It can't be UTC because the calculations are based on celestial rather than atomic motion. The Royal Greenwich Observatory says it's UT1 [1]. 92.8.216.240 (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See reference #7 in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not convinced, because all the other timescales are abbreviated the French way:
Barycentric Coordinate Time (Temps coordonné barycentrique) - TCB not BCT
Barycentric Dynamical Time (Temps dynamique barycentrique) - TDB not BDT
Geocentric Coordinate Time (Temps-coordonné géocentrique) - TCG not GCT
International Atomic Time (Temps atomique international) - TAI not IAT
Another claim in that link also seems wrong. It says:
GMT is now more commonly used to refer to the time zone at the prime meridian (0° longitude), in which case it is being used as a local representation of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) and not UT1.
The time zone at the prime meridian is GMT +/- 0 is it not, so why the reference to coordinated universal time? 92.8.216.240 (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're confusing Wikipedia with the ITU. Take it up with them and make them see the error of their ways. Jay D. Easy (t) 20:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
