User talk:SarahTehCat

Hi. You added to unit of time that The base unit of time in the International System of Units (SI), and by extension most of the Western world, is the second. I'm all for a global view of things, but surely in this case the second is used by everyone on this blue green planet? most of the Western world implies that a) there are people in the Western World using another time system, and b) that the use of this system not used outside the western world. The number of people using another time system must be insignificant or nonexistent. Or do you have info to the contrary? --Cornellier (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

First off, sorry for my late reply. Anyway, thanks for being so courtious as to post on my wall instead of just reverting my edit or whatever! I really appreciate it! :D

In response to your points, yes, there are other base units of time that at least have been used in the past, if not are still in use in some remote areas nowadays, although surely most people on Earth use the SI Second nowadays. Lol. For instance:

• The French Revolutionary Second^[1] was used as the base unit of time by France's First Republic for about 2.5 years from 1793-11-05 to 1795-04-07^[2], and was equal to 0.864 SI Second. (Or should I say the SI Second was equal to 1.157 FrRev Seconds? ;P )

• In fact, for most of history, the base unit of time was the Apparent Solar Day. This was not only the case with the ancient Egyptians^[3] as well as the Jains of ancient India^[4], but also the ancient Romans, Greeks, Chinese, and Japanese. And even the day varied by country in terms of when they started or ended, as some countries started the day at sunset, others at sunrise, others at midnight and still others even other times altogether.

In fact, I recently read a fascinating article from Scientific American about this exact topic. Here's a great quote from it:^[5]

Minutes and seconds, however, were not used for everyday timekeeping until many centuries after the Almagest. Clock displays divided the hour into halves, thirds, quarters and sometimes even 12 parts, but never by 60. In fact, the hour was not commonly understood to be the duration of 60 minutes. It was not practical for the general public to consider minutes until the first mechanical clocks that displayed minutes appeared near the end of the 16th century. Even today, many clocks and wristwatches have a resolution of only one minute and do not display seconds.

• Also, Ancient China and Japan didn't even use the Second, but a decimalised system where a day would either start at 23:00 or 00:00 local time and would be divided into 100 ke, each thus being about the duration of 14.4 minutes. And each ke would be divided into some number of fen (it varied from dynasty to dynasty).^[6]

• The Jains of ancient India also didn't use the Second. They divided a day into 15 Muhūrtas, which was further divided into 30 Trutis, 30 Kalās, 30 Lavas, and then finally 12 Nimesas, equal to about 0.018 Second. At one point, the Nimesa was actually the base, thus defining a day as 4 860 000 Nimesas.)^[7]

In any case, this is an encyclopædic entry about units of time, not units of time that are common, although the latter topic most certainly would be appropriate for a small portion of the lede as well as a significant section of the body. So it doesn't matter whether there are 12 people or 12 000 people using an alternative method—if it's known about and sufficiently documented, other Wikipedia policies notwithstanding, then it should be included in this article.

(Fyi, regarding the sources, in all instances where specific pages are cited, unless there is no in-text pagination, just go by the PDF pagination.) – SarahTehCat (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Myanmar units of measurement page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia has its own formatting. The tags you used on a recently created article are not necessary. Please take a look at this for more info: Formatting guide --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello SarahTehCat,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged The Collection (Frank Sinatra album) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia, and the artist doesn't have an article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Mark^Dask 01:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The article The Collection (Frank Sinatra album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)