Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Time

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Time and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Time This page 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

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Time: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2025-05-10 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Draft articles, canonical sundial (medieval sundials found on the walls of churches) Expand : Timeline Stubs : Stub articles

I am not sure exactly where the best place to post this is, but I have started a draft on ticking as a sound most often associated with clocks (I was astonished to learn that our article at the title, Ticking, is about an obscure kind of textile). Any thoughts on sourcing or otherwise improving this draft would be appreciated! BD2412 T 02:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Now at Ticking (sound), but could still stand expansion. BD2412 T 19:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was something that was raised a few years ago on its talk page, but I've gone through some material related to the Roman calendar, and a while back I came to the conclusion that much of the article and some related articles (Mercedonius, which might need to be moved to Intercalaris, and the Leap year error section of Julian calendar) will need to be looked at and possibly rewritten entirely. Especially due to the interference of a certain LTA, there's a lot of places where they focus on explaining the classical sources and/or downplaying modern research, and in particular they focus on an outdated model of how the leap month is handled in the Roman Republican calendar.

Unfortunately I don't have the time or energy to deal with it myself, and probably won't for a long time. As such, is anyone here willing to help? Arcorann (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a good project for me. What sources would you recommend having on hand for this? If there is a good single reference or pair of references and no one else is interested, I could plan to begin it after finishing July 2. RowanElder (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Non-Archimedean time has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced for almost 20 years, this is a thing, but this page is synthesis of several ideas.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Time_in_Australia#Merge_proposal, proposing that UTC+08:45 be merged into Time in Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 09:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anno Domini#Requested move 18 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discusssion at Talk:Big Ben#Lead paragraph about the wording of the lead paragraph of Big Ben. Anyone is welcome to participate. Thanks, A.D.Hope (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Various templates for grouping establishment and disestablishment for decades such as Template:Sports clubs and teams (dis)established in the YYY0s category header use the value of the category it was in to calculate a link to the decade. So for example, when placed in Category:Sports_clubs_and_teams_established_in_the_1940s , part of the output is

This category is for sports clubs and sports teams established in the 1940s.

However, this becomes an issue when placed in Category:Sports_clubs_and_teams_established_in_the_1800s , as 1800s is a dab page between that decade and the 19th century. 1900s on the other hand is the page for the decade. (other pages earlier in time like 1700s are also dab pages.) So I'd like to either see the XY00s pages consistently refer to decades *or* have redirects for all decades so they can be accessed like the 1800s, so for example 1920s (decade) would be a redirect to 1920s so that the templates could have the internal code generate a piped like to there (so instead of a link to 1920s, it would be to [[1920s (decade)|1920s]]. Ideas?[[User:Naraht|Naraht]] ([[User talk:Naraht|talk]]) 03:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

After deeper dive, found template:Decade link. I think I can use that.Naraht (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

I noticed some templates that claim to follow ISO week date (e.g. consistent with date computing with Julian day, ISO week or ISO year computations), but actually follow a different convention of the ISO week day number (0=Monday..6=Sunday): (lists probably incomplete)

• {{CURRENTWEEKDAY}}: {{CURRENTWEEKDAY}} → 7
  • Compare with {{#time}}: {{#time:N "for" l}} → 7 for Sunday
• {{WEEKDAYNUMBER}}: {{WEEKDAYNUMBER|Thursday}} → 4

With some templates that follow such convention, without claiming that they follow the ISO week format:

• {{Weekday}}: {{Weekday|2025|12|25}} → 4
  • Compare with {{#time}}: {{#time:N "for" l|2025-12-25}} → 4 for Thursday
• {{WEEKDAYNAME}}: {{WEEKDAYNAME|3}} → Wednesday
• {{WEEKDAYABBREV}}: {{WEEKDAYABBREV|3}} → Wed

These templates have existed for a long time with this behaviour. They are not widely used in articles, but are used in e.g. WP:Main Page/Errors and Template:Quicktemplates.

Apparently such convention is to be consistent with {{JULIANDAY}} mod 7, which is how {{Weekday}} is implemented:

• {{JULIANDAY|2025|12|25}} → 2461035
• {{WEEKDAYNAME|{{JULIANDAY|2025|12|25}}}} → Wednesday

To clarify such non-standard format, I propose to:

1. Remove mentions of the ISO format from their docs;
2. Migrate uses of these templates, possibly to calculations using {{CURRENTDOW}} (0 (for Sunday) through 6 (for Saturday), not ISO);
3. Either rename these templates, for example with "JULIANWEEKDAY" to contrast with "ISOWEEKDAY", or introduce an explicit |julianday= parameter to these templates; and
4. Have these templates return or accept ISO weekday numbering by default.

— Peterwhy (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are:

• {{Weekday in month}}: Mentions The weekday numbering follows ISO practice (Sunday → 0, Monday → 1, ... Saturday → 6).
  • I propose to just remove mentions of ISO practice, discourage weekday argument in number, and prefer in English word.
• {{Weekday in month elapsed}}: Passes arguments to {{Weekday in month}}. Calls {{CURRENTISOYEAR}} (instead of {{CURRENTYEAR}}) for no apparent reason, which is error prone near the start or end of year. Doesn't actually check other arguments if year is provided.
  • {{Weekday in month elapsed|2025|12|Wednesday|last}} → 1
  • {{Weekday in month elapsed|2026|1|Thursday|first}} → 0
  • {{Weekday in month elapsed||12|Monday|last}} → 0
• {{Weekday in month recurring}}: Calls {{Weekday in month}}, {{Weekday in month elapsed}}, and {{CURRENTISOYEAR}}.

— Peterwhy (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the first 5 templates listed above, to follow the ISO format:

• {{CURRENTWEEKDAY}}: {{CURRENTWEEKDAY}} → 7
  • Compare with {{#time}}: {{#time:N "for" l}} → 7 for Sunday
• {{WEEKDAYNUMBER}}: {{WEEKDAYNUMBER|Sunday}} → 7
• {{WEEKDAYNAME}}: {{WEEKDAYNAME|7}} → Sunday
• {{WEEKDAYABBREV}}: {{WEEKDAYABBREV|7}} → Sun
• {{Weekday}}: {{Weekday|2026|01|18}} → 7
  • Compare with {{#time}}: {{#time:N "for" l|2026-01-18}} → 7 for Sunday

Created {{JULIANDAY.DAYNAME}} to extract the day name from JD, similar to templates like {{JULIANDAY.DAY}}, {{JULIANDAY.MONTH}}, etc.:

• {{JULIANDAY|2026|01|18}} → 2461059
• {{JULIANDAY.DAYNAME|{{JULIANDAY|2026|01|18}}}} → Sunday

Converted callers of {{Weekday in month}}, {{Weekday in month elapsed}} and {{Weekday in month recurring}} that set numeric day of week. — Peterwhy (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've been editing pages from the South American Land Mammal Ages, when I noticed that the main SALMA page is part of WikiProject Time. As none of the associated pages were attached to this project, I started to add this project onto them. However, after reviewing much more popular geological epochs (such as Maastrichtian, Pleistocene, Holocene), I saw that they aren't attached to this project. Can someone clarify whether geological / faunal ages should be attached to this project? SuperTah (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From our scope statement, The principal articles with which this project deals are included in the Category:Time or one of its subcategories. The master categories for these epoch articles appears to be Category:Geology timelines and I don't see a connection between this and Category:Time. Maybe there should be. ~Kvng (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]