Talk:Date windowing

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 July 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

Disagreement with proposed deletion

I will momentarily remove the proposed deletion notice, as the reason given is "non-notable". I'm not sure if you've ever seen a date like 04/03/87 with two-digit dates, but any of those representations have some date window and thus also have a pivot date. You can't have one without the other, so I challenge anyone to tell me how this is not notable.

Whoever proposed the deletion clearly did so hastily, as the article had been created for less than a minute before deletion was proposed. Please do some research before you declare something is not notable. Fresheneesz (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As yet unused sources

http://www.computeruser.com/dictionary/sliding-window/

Perhaps give example

As mentioned in this article: http://onlineathens.com/stories/031699/new_y2k.shtml

For example, a software program with a pivot of "30" will interpret years "00" through "29" as 21st century dates, but will assume years "30" through "99" are during the 1900s. Some programmers use pivots of "50" or "70" to buy even more time, but their choices are limited by a variety of technical factors. A pivot of "70," for example, might cause problems for computers trying to process birthdates earlier than 1969. Once the pivot date is past, those computers will need to be replaced or patched again as they begin quietly contaminating data by making wrong assumptions about the century. Windowing is fraught with other risks, too. Different programs assigned different pivots can cause havoc when companies or governments try to share information, unless they take complex precautions.

Topher67 (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Topher67: Hi! I added that reference, thanks for web link! By the way, please check my contributions, if all are right please remove «stub warning», if you please.--Jimmy Olano (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FOCUS

Despite the obvious pun, the above comments make it clear that for some files, one pair of values for the date range makes sense, whereas for others another is needed. There may also be a need to use different 100-year spans for different fields in the same file. The first release of "Century Aware" FOCUS (version 7.0) lacked the full set of flexibility described above. Later on this was added. Pi314m (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose redirecting to my current website

References to www.exit109.com/~ghealton/ need to be redirected to x109.healton.net/ but when I edited References I found RefList. At that point I decided that asking was the better way.

Even if I update and edit the information as I move it elsewhere this "old" address will forward to the right place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrigMadProgrammer (talk • contribs) 00:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are none. The reference is to http://x109.healton.net/y2k/yrexamples.html#_GoodGuys.Pivot, and I don't think it's a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]