Talk:Universal Time
|
|
Merged with the Universal time article which was on the identical subject. A capital 'T' is correct. It is a proper noun. Bluelion 07:01 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). -- looxix 21:08 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)
Yea, I've read that quite a few times. It says: Unless the term you wish to create a page for is a proper noun, do not capitalize second and subsequent words. This article is about Universal Time (UT0, UT1, UTC, etc.) It is not about universal time. It's no more valid to title this article Universal time than it would be to title an article 'David letterman' or 'Emily post'. I've noticed articles on other time scales are misnamed, too, although some (like Terrestrial Time) are correct. Someone (not I) has correctly made the Terrestrial time article a redirect to the properly titled Terrestrial Time article. (I am curious about miscapitalization of article titles where the first letter should be lowercase, like pH which is an article entitled PH. What 'PH' is I'm sure I don't know. It's good for a chuckle, though.)
- No problem for me (I prefer it like this), but I'm not sure what the "offical" way is. -- looxix 23:22 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)
UT0
I'm not sure what to make of this paragraph.
- "the rotational time of a particular place of observation" would suggests a sun-time, different for each longitude, but "However, ... different observatories will find a different value for UT0 at the same moment" suggest that theoretically there should be only one.
- Yet, that lat sentence suggests it's OK to get variation in the values, whereas "because of polar motion, the geographic position of any place on Earth varies" suggests variations would mean the observer failed to correctly take this polar motion into account when calculating UT0.
- One would expect "a simple subtraction yields UT0" to be useful to determine which interpretation is correct, but unfortunately the actual substraction is not given, somewhat reducing the amount of information in that sentence. Aliter 18:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that the wording should be improved. But that will require some explanation of polar motion within the paragraph. The problem is how best to do that without excessively increasing the length of the paragraph. — Joe Kress 07:33, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)