Talk:New Earth Time

Time Cube

One NET degree is therefore equivalent to four (normal) minutes, and one normal hour is equivalent to 15 NET degrees.

-Doesn't this prove, or at least support Time Cube? ;-)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.2.65 (talk • contribs) 16 April 2007

Usage

How notable is all this? Where is it used? Has any technology implement it? Even Swatch Internet Time is more well-known. Pictureuploader (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Widely implemented? Precisely where?LorenzoB (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selfref example

I think we can live without the Wikipedia selfref-templated "Example: 209° 1' 15" NET - This was the New Earth Time when this page was last refreshed." - the reader doesn't necessarily know when the page was last refreshed (it might be cached, they might have printed it out), the reader might not know what "refreshed" means in this context, and anyone reading this in a different medium will be denied an example.

We already have "For example, noon is 180°0'0" NET time and at that time the hour hand is pointing straight down forming a 180° angle when measured from the top, at midnight." - we could probably use another example, but "time when this page was last refreshed" isn't a good one. (If nothing else, anyone reading the page at 6pm will unhelpfully be given the same example twice.) --McGeddon (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand what you mean with the reader not understanding, but this isn't Simple English Wikipedia so complex definitions are allowed. What I suggest as a "meet in the middle" solution is that we keep the the template and add a purge link with an explanation to the fact that it will refresh the time on the page to give the current time as this updates with each purge. Also the code behind the template is extremely useful to someone interested in displaying New Earth Time. Taking out this code with the text is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. Also a similar situation is encountered on Swatch Internet Time. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 302° 33' 29" NET 20:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining how to purge the article is needlessly overcomplicated, and the fact that the reader has to purge the article before they can see the current time in NET seems like an excessive amount of work just to arrive at "for example, time X in GMT is time Y in NET".

A second example - and one chosen to be usefully illustrative, making sure to pick one with a minute and second value - seems much more informative to the reader. If we want to give the reader a tool for seeing what the current time is in NET, it'd be more helpful to give an external link to a (ticking) online clock, than to ask them to purge a Wikipedia article. --McGeddon (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for an explanation since purging can be accomplished by clicking a link as is done with the common page links. See the purge article for an example of this in action. Again, this isn't Simple English Wikipedia so complex definitions are allowed. Also, this bit of the article has been placed for the benefit of those may want to use the code behind it and can understand how to make use of it, while those who aren't interested can just ignore it and those curious can take a peek at it and maybe query it on the talk page. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 320° 44' 15" NET 21:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a clever bit of code, but Wikipedia articles shouldn't try to provide useful or interesting code snippets. We shouldn't be making an article slightly less useful to the average reader, mainly because it provides an interesting code snippet. I don't see how "this isn't Simple English Wikipedia" is an argument for making a timestamp example harder to understand; this is an interface and accessibility problem, not a vocabulary issue. --McGeddon (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in the sense that the article should be easy to understand, but removing the code isn't the best way to go about it. All that is really needed is that the sentence underneath it be rephrased in such a way that makes it as easy to understand as possible as opposed to depriving the reader of the code as this is something that would be done on the Simple English Wikipedia, while here the aim is to explain complicated ideas in an easily understandable way. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 198° 52' 0" NET 13:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English isn't an issue - this comes down to whether it's better to say "For example, 302° 33' 29 NET is equal to 3:31pm GMT" as a flat sentence or "For example, 302° 33' 29 NET is equal to 3:31pm GMT (which was the time this page was last reloaded, you can click here to update this to the current time)".

For the latter, it's probably better if only the bracketed text is in a selfref template; readers on mirror or paper copies of Wikipedia shouldn't be denied the example. But the template should definitely be updated to specify the equivalent GMT time of the most recent purge, if it's kept - the information is almost useless without this. --McGeddon (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I agree with the latter example with the refresh link as that allows the code to remain for others who may want to use it. So all that really needs to be added is the equivalent GMT time to the NET time for clarity. I also suggest that a similar amendment be carried out on the Swatch Internet Time article as there is a similar situation there. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 181° 46' 0" NET 12:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added UTC time as per consensus. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 178° 48' 0" NET 11:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said the issue comes down to which of the two solutions is better, not that either would be fine. Personally I'd tend towards a second fixed, plaintext example in the body of the article (we already have one for noon, but could maybe use another). --McGeddon (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggested that only the "click here to refresh" link should be a selfref; it seems unhelpful to give Wikipedia readers a NET/UTC example, but deny it to anyone trying to print the article out, or read it on a mirror site. --McGeddon (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about having the template in the corner where some article have infoboxes; that way it isn't right in the middle of the first bit of text and yet be available to those interested in it, while those who aren't can just ignore it. I don't really mind what is dove with it, but it shouldn't be deleted because it is a very useful bit of code for those who will want to use it. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 289° 40' 15" NET 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That something is a "very useful bit of code for those who will want to use it" is not a relevant argument for using a "click to refresh" example over a carefully chosen plaintext one. There are better places to share clever Mediawiki parser functions. Assuming all technical solutions to be equally possible, this discussion should be about the final user experience. --McGeddon (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is just a plain text example, then those who want to get access to code that will let them have New Earth Time will not be able to as there would be no source code. Also, this page is the best place for such code to be placed and used to maximum potential. It could just as easily be put in the corner where those who require it can have access to it. I'm sure a lot of articles haves lots of items that get out-shined by the main text of the article. If something like that happened here, then it should be OK to keep it in the corner. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 320° 25' 59" NET 21:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not here to provide code snippets. They sometimes use them, but never at the expense of the article quality. It may be possible to embed a playable game of Tetris in the Tetris article, and it would certainly be clever and instructive to other coders to do so, but it would be inappropriate.

If you want to share useful code snippets with other editors, you should follow User:Thinboy00's lead and just make a subpage of your user page, where you can have the snippet running as a template, document it in detail, and have a clear space for other editors to talk about it. That template can be mentioned on the talk page here, so that anyone looking for it can find it. We don't need it in the middle of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is to be the case, then there should at least be a link leading to that page, so that those who want it can at least get access to it. Also, having this code in this article is not equivalent to having a Tetris game in the Tetris article. Here, this code actually has a purpose as it is telling the reader the current New Earth Time. As an alternate solution, it may be possible to have the New Earth Time continuously updating, so it is always displaying the current New Earth Time. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 256° 1' 15" NET 17:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, articles shouldn't ever link to userspace pages. And rightly so, in this case; a ParserFunctions Mediawiki implementation of "convert EST to NET" is no more relevant to the subject than a C++ or Javascript implementation. We shouldn't link to all of these, so we shouldn't link to any. As with User:Thinboy00's Swatch Internet Time, mentioning it on the talk page is enough.

If it's possible to implement a live display of NET, then fine, but given the lack of such a feature on the articles for UTC and other timezones, I'm guessing it's either not feasible, or not appropriate. --McGeddon (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case then, the reader will have no way of recreating New Earth Time for themselves, an ability that would actually allow the article to aid understanding of the translation between NET and UTC time. Also, the editors who put the code on the page in the first place must have had a reason to do so and it is for that reason that I think the code should remain. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 293° 30' 30" NET 19:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.newearthtime.net is linked at the bottom of the article, and gives the current time in NET. I don't know what the original editor's rationale was - if we don't know what it was and can't think of a comprehensively good reason for keeping it in the article, it's fair enough to decide that maybe the original editor was wrong. --McGeddon (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that link. The site does do a good job of showing live New Earth Time. Probably better than any code placed on this article. Well, since it does the job that the code was meant to do; I guess we can do with out it after all, but the article still needs a lot of improving as it doesn't really make understanding New Earth Time as simple a possible and the code was the only way of getting something useful. So alongside removing the code, I would suggest major improvements to the article in order to balance it. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 311° 25' 30" NET 20:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Removed template as per consensus. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 313° 2' 15" NET 20:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we should definitely do more to explain the system to the layperson. Do you think the article might benefit from a diagram of a clockface, or just a clearer picture of the Greenwich clock (which there are surely plenty of photos of, if we dig on Flickr a bit)? --McGeddon (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a clearer picture would be better, but I don't think we need to go that far. I found this file of the Greenwich clock on Wikimedia Commons. It seems to do the job as it is a head on picture instead of at an angle like the current one as also has a lot of detail. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 283° 48' 45" NET 18:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! And if we use that picture as the second example (giving it a caption explaining that 14:06 UTC is whatever it is NET), that should be more enough to get the idea across. Nice find. --McGeddon (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll argee with that; sounds like a plan. Also, 14:06 UTC would be 211° 30' NET, though the second hand shows 49 seconds, so we have 14:06:49 UTC, which is 211° 42' 15" NET. Another thing that could be useful is to explain the connection with New Earth Time and the clockwise angle from zero to the position of the hour hand, since in this case the angle is 211° 42' 15". The addition of a translation table would also be a good feature to the page as on the Swatch Internet Time article. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 228° 15' 15" NET 15:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It this an advertisment or an article?

If this is an article it should be marked stub. Who invented, why, why 360°, why CET, references, etc. etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chosig (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The website's last copyright date is 2021, and User:Thesevenseas (who appears above) was indefinitely blocked a long time ago, so I think it's fair to say that after twenty-four years New Earth Time has not caught on. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m inclined to think New Earth Time is at most a stub. Fghijklmn45679 (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]