Talk:Sekants Time

This is an original theory, right? So it shouldn't be in Wikipedia, right? Google hits aren't indicative of lack of encyclopaedic nature, but 2 google hits, both of which are similar to Wikipedia articles, with the same text... well, this is clearly not what Wikipedia is for, specifically, Wikipedia contains no original research. Sorry, Yitzhak 00:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that it should be noted in the Decimal time article as an alternative system - because obviously it is - but without any third party references outside 2 websites it cannot possibly be worth a dedicated article.--Gene_poole 00:49, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's difficult to make an assessment based on google hits, many subjects are stricly in printed form, with little or no webcontent. It's dangerous to define what is worthy or appropriate based on Google or any other search engine, or the internet as a whole for that matter. Perhaps a more appropriate measure of worthiness would be, is it a NEW original system?; or, is it an OLD original system which may have been published in hard copy? It seems that this system was constructed 14 years ago, at least, which I would not regard as new.

sekants time is part of an alternative Pandecimal metric system proposed in europe in 1990.

the system has been published in Germany and Sweden, and should be considered a valid subject for an international encyclopedia.

the ubiquitous American viewpoint that anything not available in english, or which generates few Google hits is non existant, or not suitable for reference in Wikipedia, is both arrogant and insensate.


 * First of all, I'm from Germany, and was schooled from Vorschule through Abi at a German public school. Secondly, saying that it's arrogant or insensate to try to verify the validity of a wiki article is, well, not giving a lot of credit.  If you have sources, I would suggest listing them.  If this theory is published, where is it published?  In addition, not all that is published is automatically Encylopaedic.  If there is some more substantial justification for the inclusion of Sekants time, I would love to see it, I have a library nearby and would be more than happy to look up references to convince myself it's not simply something you made up.  Articles in Wikipedia need to be confirmable - that is, there must exist outside sources which I can investigate to assure myself that the article is indeed accurate, otherwise anyone can make up their own article and post it here.  If it was indeed published in 1990, please tell me where I can find this publication, who it was authored by (an individual? a committee?), and what work references this.  If it's not referenced anywhere, it's not really the material for an encyclopaedia.  Although I'm not sure this last criterion is important for Wikipedia (so far I must say I haven't seen any indication of it), it's common sense that only something that someone might have cause to look up is encyclopaedic.  Does that make sense, or is it too American? -- Yitzhak 23:07, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would first like to apologise for my persistant reverts and header removal, I give you my word as a gentleman that no such edits will occur again. it was not my intention to be disrepectful, nor uncooperative. I would prefer to work with all of you in working out an positive solution which is acceptable to everyone.

in reply to Yitzhak, there is absolutely nothing wrong with american standards, I simply fail to understand why such a standard should be imposed on an international article, when ISO formatting is a global standard which is comprehensible to anyone (americans, europeans, asians, etc..), I don't think I'm being unreasonable in making such a suggestion. what is your opinion?

in regards to the article in question, would the subject be acceptable for Wikipedia if more references could be provided? if so, I would do my best to provide such references.


 * Firstly, this is not, as you claim, an international article. It is in the English Wikipedia, not the German, French or Japanese Wikipedia.  As such, it should contain notation that is most understandable to English speakers.  Native-language English speakers are primarily accustomed to comma-period rather than space-comma notation.  Non-native speakers with education in English are certain to be familiar with English notation.  Only those who are not familiar with English would be ignorant of this notation, ergo it is not a problem.  ISO standard is as confusing to English speakers as English notation would be to non-English speakers - namely, you could figure it out, but it's not what you're used to.
 * Secondly, yes, sources that validate what you are saying would cause me to support the page existing (I would probably have to fix it up a lot - please capitalize, spell, and refrain from HTML unless necessary). Also, please sign your posts with four tildes like this: ~ which turns into something like this: Yitzhak 18:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since English is the international language (Lingua-Franca) of the world, I regard Wikipedia.org to be an international Encyclopedia reference. in any case I respect your opinion, and I will not press the issue. after all it's the content which matters most. I apologise for my querky (concise) prose style and aversion to CAPS, I will do my best to conform to Wiki standards from here on. and also to remember to sign my posts :-) Metrische Zeit 18:34, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)