Talk:24-hour clock

in speech

We need a section on usage in speech, see https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/35006/how-should-one-say-times-aloud-in-24-hour-notation --Espoo (talk) 08:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Seconding that. Also, the map in the article shows that some countries continue to use the 12-hour clock in informal speech despite otherwise using 12-hour notation. The text should mention this as well. --217.149.173.24 (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Colon use designating between military time and 24 hour time

I just happened upon this article. Military time has no colon and the only way it's presented here is with one.

That might be '24 hour time' but there's no military time article or no reference to the non colon use way. The whole point of military time was to simplify time, use of a colon is superfluous to that. 47.146.161.240 (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I know people with experience in the US military and seen them not use a colon, but Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Do you have reliable sources that so-called military time requires there be no colon? What other requirements about writing time does the military have? Which military? US? NATO? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Invalid date and time formats in the conventional clocks

Dates, as the day 0, the 29 Februarys on the common years, 30 February, 31 November, the day 32, the month 0 and the month 13, for example, are invalid. Times, as 23:59:60, 23:60, 24:00:00 and 24:00, for example, also are invalid. The conventional clocks do not accept these invalid formats.

2804:18:65:718B:2:2:4791:4BB8 (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.26.224.147 (talk)

What does this have to do with this article? Month, for example, doesn't mention "the day 32" because what doesn't exist isn't relevant on such an article. What changes are you proposing for this article, and what reliable sources do you have to support your proposed changes? - Aoidh (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The conventional digital clocks mark "errors" when the invalid dates or the invalid hours are adjusted. The second format goes by 00 to 59, the minute format goes by 00 to 59 and the hour format goes by 00 to 23. The day format goes by 01 to 31 and the month format goes by 01 to 12.

177.26.224.147 (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

What do months and days have to do with the 24-hour clock, this article? Anastrophe (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll ask again IP editor: What, specifically, are you suggesting to be changed in the article, and what reliable sources do you propose that support your contentions? Anastrophe (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The conventional digital clocks contain hour values from "00" to "23", minute from "00" to "59" and second from "00" to "59". Many clocks contain the formats "HH:MM:SS" ("00:00:00" and "23:59:59", for example) and "DD-MM-YY" ("01-01-00", "29-02-00" and "31-12-99", for example).

179.98.235.119 (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Variety of English

This post appeared on my talk page:

The edit of 08:21, 7 June 2003 introduces the word "endeavour." 156.61.250.251 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I acknowledge this predates the use of American English from 2005 that I found. I will link to the edit. I intend to add the {{Use British English}} template to the article and check the spelling. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: it's a bit more complicated than that since per MOS you need to find the first non-stub revision with a variety that can be identified, and the revision in question fails both prongs; it is still a stub and could as easily be Canadian English as South African or a dozen other varieties (this is why the article is at humour and not humor despite having been started at the latter title). Additionally, 156.61.250.251 was evading a block, and probably just trying to be disruptive.

Anyway, I don't care enough to look through the history to see what this should be tagged as, but if you want to revert to before the sock edits feel free. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Fleming edits

So here is the full quote from Fleming [1]: "It is proposed to take as the unit-measure of time, the artificial day known as the mean solar day. This unit to be divided into twenty-four equal parts, and these, again, into minutes and seconds by a standard timekeeper or chronometer, hypothetically stationed at the centre of the earth."

@Jc3s5h what part about this does not support that Fleming's system is not based on keeping time at the center of the Earth? Mathnerd314159 (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

a further quote from the next page:

"the time indicated by the Standard Chronometer would have no special relation to any particular locality or longitude : it would be common and equally related to, all places ; and the twenty-four sub-divisions of the day would be simply portions of abstract time.

The standard time-keeper is referred to the centre of the earth in order clearly to bring out the idea, that it is equally related to every point on the surface of the globe." Mathnerd314159 (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

User: Mathnerd314159 has tried to make several edits stating that Sandford Fleming "proposed a single 24-hour clock for the entire world, located at the centre of the Earth, not linked to any surface meridian", and cited a work by Fleming to support the edits. But the edits do not correctly describe Fleming's work. Fleming's writing is a thought experiment, rather than a practical clock. The face of the hypothetical clock would be parallel to the equator, and would be arranged so the hour hand points to the meridian where noon is occurring. He proposed the hours of the day, and the meridians, be designated with 24 letters of the alphabet, with G being assigned to Greenwich.

Since this scheme is seldom mentioned, and it would take considerable text to explain it, I don't think this scheme should be mentioned in the article. Additional reasons to reject it are

• Now that that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is available, we know that time passes more slowly than it would if the Earth could be eliminated, but if time were kept at the location where the center of the Earth would have been.
• "Terrestrial Time" now has a specific meaning, which is different from what Fleming meant.
• The whole apparatus of placing the timekeeper at the center of the Earth does not improve the explanation, and just causes confusion.
• A short quote does not adequately convey the scheme, it's necessary to read the whole memoir to understand it.

Jc3s5h (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't made these edits, I have been reverting IP ‎71.195.46.250's edits (was that you?) that changed it from the original phrasing "a single 24-hour clock for the entire world, located at the centre of the Earth, not linked to any surface meridian" to a new phrasing "a single 24-hour clock for the entire world, referenced to a standard meridian". The original phrasing was added by user @AndrewNJ in this edit 5 years ago. As this original phrasing has stood the test of time, the WP:BURDEN is on you to show that the new phrasing is correct. You have not presented any sources that show Fleming supported a 24-hour clock referenced to a standard meridian; indeed, the present sources show the opposite - "Time Lord" says Fleming proposed an imaginary chronometer in the center of the Earth, and "Time-reckoning for the twentieth century" credits Mr. Christie and the conference with proposing the meridian time. Even if there is something in the "Time-reckoning" source that shows Fleming supports the meridian time, Fleming certainly did not imagine a standard meridian in 1876 as the sentence's context suggests - it was later, in 1884, at the conference.

As far as the scheme being seldom mentioned, "Time Lord" mentions it for one. It is really Fleming's signature work. Britanica says "Fleming advocated the adoption of a standard, or mean, time with hourly variations from it according to a system of time zones."; admittedly it is a bit oblique as to whether this standard time is measured at the center of the earth.

Now if you don't want to mention the scheme, there are several places to link to - Sandford Fleming#Inventor of world time, Universal Time#History, and Time zone#Worldwide time zones. Maybe change the whole paragraph to "Sandford Fleming was an early proponent of using the 24-hour clock as part of a programme to reform timekeeping, see Sandford Fleming § Inventor of world time. The Canadian Pacific Railway..." Mathnerd314159 (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

A source mentioned in Sanford Fleming is the first endnote,

• Creet, Mario (1990). "Sandford Fleming and Universal Time". Scientia Canadensis: Canadian Journal of the History of Science, Technology and Medicine. 14 (1–2): 66–89. doi:10.7202/800302ar.

This source gives a good overview of how Fleming's activities and papers lead to the adoption of universal time, time zones, and a prime meridian for the world (although Fleming first advocated a prime meridian through the Bering Strait). This article supports the statement currently in the article.

You're correct that the current endnotes, no. 15 and 16, aren't very satisfactory. I don't think their really adequate for either the older or newer version of the article. The first does not have the pages of interest online, so I can't evaluate it. The second, by Blaise, gives a rather oblique description of the paper on "Terrestrial Time", making it impossible to understand "Terrestrial Time" from that book. It is useful for this discussion in that it describes "Terrestrial Time" as "far too difficult for commercial adoption in its day" and goes on to say that in 1878 Fleming published a second, simplified, paper which abandoned the buried clock and proposed a surprising prime meridian. (I imagine that's the one through the Bering Strait.) Jc3s5h (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Reading further in the paragraph, I see the Creet source I mentioned is already cited. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Date format for article

As far as I can find, the first version of the article to use an acceptable date format used several different date formats in the same edit. The date format of the article is still inconsistent. For no particular reason, I suggest the "day month year" format for the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Since there is no response after 5 days I will make the change. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)