Talk:Second
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Second article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
"Fourth (time)" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fourth (time). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 7#Fourth (time) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Cnilep (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The SI multiples section should not simply be a table.
[edit]The commentary I added regarding the SI multiples of the second was not redundant, should be restored, and ideally be elaborated on by editors with more specialised knowledge about the subjects than me. Considering: that Wikipedia is designed to be broadly accessible, that many readers are likely to have little or no familiarity with extremely large or small numbers or with thinking about timescales well outside the range of human experience, that some readers will have been redirected to this page by clicking on links marked e.g. "zeptosecond" or "exasecond", and that many of these examples are just plain cool and interesting, which is an important consideration in public education (if you don't think mine specifically were [I wasn't all that happy with the monarch reign lengths TBH] please suggest your own!), it seems entirely appropriate to me that the article spend a paragraph or so giving a sense of what each of the SI multiples means in practice and why anyone would be interested in them, rather than simply state the technical definition. This would not be "redundant". At the time of making this post, the multiples section contains no information besides what could be inferred by applying the normal prefix system to this unit, plus the comment that the prefixes representing numbers greater than one are rarely used in practice, some hyperlinks I (originally) added, and the multiples hectosecond and up translated into more familiar units. And even here, a quantity like 31,700 years (much less 31.7 trillion years) will be a meaningless and abstract number to many readers and some context should be added.Ava Eva Thornton (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hello. Thanks for starting a discussion. If you want to remove the table and replace it with a bulleted list, that would be fine with me. That would remove the redundancy and provide a place for anecdotal facts. Please do not create a subsection for every multiple. It bloats the table of contents. Subsections should be substantial and not one or two sentences. Constant314 (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Redefining the second
[edit]Second#Future redefinition and Atomic clock#Redefining the second are the same exact section. They need to be merged to one page. Nerdwizard (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Duplication is acceptable. There is no policy against it. However, you are welcome to suggest changes. Constant314 (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)