Talk:Time formatting and storage bugs

"5,391,559,471,918,239,497,011,222,876,596" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 5,391,559,471,918,239,497,011,222,876,596 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 5 § 5,391,559,471,918,239,497,011,222,876,596 until a consensus is reached. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Y10k is an April fools joke

The Y10k section is an example of someone taking an April fools joke too seriously. Not only was RFC 2550 released on April 1, 1999, but its content is obviously humorous (unless someone seriously thinks that a program needs to handle all possible dates in the lifetime of the universe and more). In my opinion, this RFC deserves no attention in a serious context. I'm not going to completely remove the section, in case someone can find a source that genuinely speaks of a "Y10k" problem. Nickps (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems Y10k section is deleted cause in the 1999 section, nothing is mentioned about the date in question, 1 April 1999, is not shown. 2601:483:400:1CD0:F363:3DBC:56E1:2313 (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with including the Nintendo 2036 problems?

@CodeTalker: I noticed that you reverted my edit in which I added the Wii and Animal Crossing: City Folk year 2036 problems, on the grounds that Reddit and YouTube are not reliable sources. Except that they are pretty much the best sources we can get for this kind of thing. People have discussed on these problems on forums without providing screenshots/photos/videos as proof. Do you think Nintendo is going to openly acknowledge that they have this problem on their console and game? I also can attest to the Wii thing because I have a Wii. Considering that we have an article for the Wii, it seems notable to include. I think we should mention it on the Wii article too. --Grey Clownfish (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

If the best sources for this information are unreliable, then the information should not be in Wikipedia. That's unfortunate, but all information here must be verifiable. The source does not need to be Nintendo; it can come from a magazine, newspaper or reliable online source that has reported on the problem, like all the other information in this article. Basing the content on your own observations would also not be acceptable, as that would be original research. CodeTalker (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue there are reliable source we can cite, Wii System Menu and Animal Crossing: City Folk. I'm not sure why citing software seems to unheard of. It's fundamentally no different from citing a book. If I had a book, I could cite it, and there would be no objection to that. I have Wii System Menu. Why can't I cite it? Grey Clownfish (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Why you can't cite it? Well actually you kind of can as many people shown 2036 being rolled over to 2000. Technically this talk page is an online source reporting on the problem.

Also "Wii System Menu" doesn't really show anything so good luck using it.

But otherwise this discussion should be left behind for a while. 2601:483:400:1CD0:F363:3DBC:56E1:2313 (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

In Wii Menu, when you reach 00:00 on 1 January 2036, it does not roll over to 2000, but to 00:00 on 31 December 2035.

Possible citation for Wii Menu:

Wii Menu 4.3 (software), Nintendo, 2010

I'm not sure why Wii Menu is often called "Wii System Menu", as its official name is in fact just "Wii Menu". Grey Clownfish (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of a citation is to allow the reader to verify the information, by checking the source. If we cite a book with a page number, the reader can obtain the book and read that page. If we cite a web site with a URL, the reader can go that URL and read it. On the other hand, if the citation says "Wii Menu 4.3 (software), Nintendo, 2010", that doesn't give the reader any information about how to verify the information. They could obtain a Wii, look at the menu, and then what? That doesn't verify the claim that there's a date rollover bug. A useful citation to a bug in a piece of software would need to include a set of instructions on how to reproduce the issue. This not how citations are typically done and doesn't seem very feasible to me. It seems like original research. What we want is a published source (web site, magazine, book, etc) that describes the bug, like we have for all the other items in this article. CodeTalker (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree but video's can be cited.

Here watch this: https://youtube.com/watch/eswoKMVt9Xc?si=yOzY19t0laiRGqN5&t=397

See what happened after 12/31/2035. 2601:483:400:1CD0:A09D:F939:F5EC:F634 (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Spelling correction: videos 2601:483:400:1CD0:A09D:F939:F5EC:F634 (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Youtube videos that are not produced by a reliable source such as a news organization are not a reliable source and should not be cited; see WP:RSPYT. There's no way for anyone to tell whether that video accurately shows the operation of the software, or whether it has been manipulated or even completely fabricated. CodeTalker (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes we can tell, if we have Wii Menu and set the time to 23:59 on 31 December 2035, and wait one minute.

And likewise if we have Animal Crossing: City Folk and set the time to a few minutes before 12:00 am on 1 January 2036.

That's why I think we should be able to cite software, and it should be considered a reliable source. Grey Clownfish (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

For an end of time problem, I don't think reproduction steps are necessary. As it's common sense that the way to reproduce it is to change the clock to the last possible time.

If reproduction steps need to be described, it can be in the paragraph rather than citation.

And I just don't see how citing software is original research. Citing anything else is surely original research then. What do you mean it's not a reliable source? Why wouldn't it be? It's literally the subject of the claim, which is in my opinion, the most reliable source possible. Or don't tell me that's the problem. But what if it was a book? You wouldn't bat an eye!

Remember that Wikipedia has citation templates for books, journals, websites, audio and visual media, maps, etc. I'm not sure how software is fundamentally different. Grey Clownfish (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The subject of a claim is at best a primary source and is therefore normally NOT the best source; see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY as well as WP:RS. I've made my argument and don't really have anything more to say about this. If you want other opinions, you could open a discussion at WP:RSN. CodeTalker (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY strongly suggests that citing the primary source is appropriate in this case. In fact, it acknowledges that primary sources are in fact the most reliable. Secondary sources are needed for interpreting primary sources. Which is not the case here. You can clearly see from checking the clock after the end of time comes that it goes back one day in the case of Wii Menu, and 36 years in the case of Animal Crossing: City Folk. You don't need a secondary source to make that conclusion. Anyone can read the time on a Wii.

You know, I actually think I saw something resembling the kind of source you find acceptable for the Wii Menu issue.

https://macho-nacho.com/news/the-wiis-uncertain-future/ Grey Clownfish (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You know, I agree 71.24.5.226 (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Removed ATSC 1.0 as example of problem in year 2048

I removed ATSC 1.0 from the section on year 2048. An anonymous user added this on 7 September 2015. This anonymous user claimed ATSC used signed 32-bit value, without providing any references. Since 2015 other users added references for the ATSC standard, which show that ATSC uses a unsigned (not signed) value. Therefore, not a problem in year 2048. So I've removed this from year 2048 section -- netjeff (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I was not the user but I want would want to know, If it doesn't go in Year 2048, where does it go? 2601:483:400:1CD0:A09D:F939:F5EC:F634 (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Year 2000 problem

I added some information about the year 2000 problem and accidentaly deleted some stuff. Fortunately, the deleted stuff is added back but 1 thing I deleted on purpose is also back. This is the information in question: "Follow-on problems caused by certain temporary fixes to the Y2K problem will crop up at various points in the 21st century. Some programs were made Y2K-compliant by continuing to use two digit years, but picking an arbitrary year prior to which those years are interpreted as 20xx, and after which are interpreted as 19xx.

For example, a program may have been changed so that it treats two-digit year values 00–68 as referring to 2000 through 2068, and values 69–99 as referring to 1969 through 1999. Such a program will not be able to correctly deal with years beyond 2068.

For applications required to calculate the birth year (or another past year), such an algorithm has long been used to overcome the Year 1900 problem, but it has failed to recognise people over 100 years old." This does not appear very relevant to the year 2000 problem except for the last part. Just to clarify, 2000 was part of the 2nd millennium and the 20th century but not the third millennium and the 21st century. Everything in the quote should be deleted except for the paragraph at the bottom, as it seems valuable for further discussion. It is unnecessary to add it back. 2601:483:400:1CD0:F363:3DBC:56E1:2313 (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Other sections, such as Year 1975, Year 1993 (rehashed in Year 2007), and First GPS Rollover also discuss problems with the fixes used. What I assume are basically follow-up problems from Y2K are discussed in Microsoft Schedule+ (in Year 2020), Year 2040, Year 2069, and Year 2080. Solomon Ucko (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)