Wikivoyage talk:Time and date formats

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions




12:30 and 00:30[edit]

Seems like a stupid question... but how do we write these time formats in the 12 hour clock? We don't use 12PM nor 12AM because some refer to the first as midnight, and the latter as noon, but midnight:30 or noon:30 doesn't seem right. So how is this meant to be formatted? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SHB2000: AM and PM (antemeridiem and postmeridiem) tell us the time before mid-day (meridiem, or noon) and after mid-day. Noon is neither before nor after mid-day — it is mid-day. 12:30PM is after mid-day. 12:30AM is before mid-day. Ground Zero (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. It's just that, if some people think 12PM is midnight, then wouldn't they be thinking 12:30PM is 30 minutes past midnight? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They shouldn't do that. The confusion comes from noon being neither before mid-day nor after mid-day. 12:30PM, when you'd be eating lunch, is obviously after mid-day. Ground Zero (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Finally seemed to get it. It's why the invention of the 12 hour clock was never a good idea (fine in colloquial speech, but... not in writing) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now, I seem to get the logic. It's confusing, but I eventually got it (L'horloge de 12 heures est vieille et obsolète. Pourquoi les ≈20 pays utilisent-ils le système obsolète ???) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The clock begins at 12:00, midnight. The next minute is 12:01, which is 12:01 AM because it takes place ante-meridiem, or before-midday. All times until the next 12 (midday) are AM. After midday 12, is PM for the following 12 hours. The numbers 1-12 are unrelated to this system.
I was confused when, some years ago, I first became familiar with the 24-hour system. I still have to translate times like 19:00 or 20:00 across to 12-hour times, and sometimes I make mistakes. As with the non-metric system, if you're used to a system it works differently. I got used to the metric system and 24-hour clock but still have to make the mental conversion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thankfully I don't have this problem on the French Wikivoyage, thankfully because we use 24 hour time universally over there, regardless of whether the location uses 12 or 24 (we also use a template for that too :-) ). How does tdf formats work on es.voy? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Analogue watches and clocks with few exceptions work with the 12-hour system also where the 24-hour system is used otherwise. Over here the 12-hr system is used also in normal speech (without the am/pm). Thus one has to do the conversion many times a day. Having lived here all my life, once in a while I still mix up the 30 past of the 24-hr system with the "half to" we use in our 12-hr system, or do something stupid with the 2-hr difference (18 → 8 instead of 18 → 6), mostly when tired and distracted, and about something I checked a while ago. –LPfi (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I once nearly did that in Orlando and nearly missed a flight (7PM → 17:00 instead of 7PM → 19:00). Thankfully there were storms and so it got delayed by about 4 hours. I cannot really understand why about 20-30 countries still use the old and outdated 12 hour system which was a never a good idea to start with? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Writing the format in Mmm dd yyyy formats?[edit]

Under dates, it currently says to use

Use the date format of dd Mmm yyyy, e.g., 10 Jan 2003.

What about in places where Mmm DD YYYY are more commonly used? Would it still have to be written as DD Mmm YYYY? I'm seeing the Mmm DD format being mostly used, but I feel the policy should allow using Mmm dd yyyy if needed, since that's not confusing at all (unlike DD/MM or MM/DD). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should keep the current guideline. There are many places around the world where the commonly used formats are confusing and ambiguous for the traveller. If we cannot follow local practices in most places, following them in some places, and partly in some more, mostly just adds to complexity and decreases consistency. I don't know how the traveller would benefit in our changing the order, they seldom need to compare dates, and with the month in letters and the year four-digit, there is no ambiguity. –LPfi (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair, I'm not sure how April 2 2022 seems more confusing than 2 April 2022. Both are not usually ambiguous. I may be slightly biased given I see both equally in my day to day life. Plus, a good chunk of our American + Latin American articles seem to use that format too. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dump the guideline. We need to forbid the ambiguous 4-2-2022 or 2-4-2022; the only acceptable numeric format should be 2022-4-2, and that should be rare (except perhaps in China where it is standard). Beyond that, policing usage is wasted effort.
I'm Canadian & to me April 2 2022 is the normal way to write the date. 2 April 2022 is also acceptable but looks like a Britishism to me. Pashley (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For extra clarification, I'm not suggesting we do DD/MM/YYYY or MM/DD/YYYY. I'm just suggesting we allow both April 2 2022 and 2 April 2022 as our policy only permits 2 April 2022.
As an Australian though, both are equally used here, except in government documents as 2 April 2022 reads easier for computers. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikivoyage:Time and date formats/New version[edit]

This version is a simpler presentation of what we have now. It was drafted in 2013, but never proposed or discussed. I propose to implement it now.

This does not change any existing formatting policy. It only changes how the information is presented on this page.

Any changes to formatting policy should be addressed in separate threads, and not in this one. Such proposals always open a can of worms that would derail this discussion completely. Ground Zero (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why does the 1st column have such a big font size? Nurg (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off, I don't exactly agree with using a table format. Whilst easier to read on desktop, they are harder to read on mobile (which is why I want to change the formatting on English language varieties, though I will never get the consensus to do that). I would support implementing the new draft if the tables were removed and replaced with plain text, but isn't the new version just the existing version but with tables? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This particular table isn't difficult to read on mobile, but in general they are and if we ever needed to add a third column here, it would become unreadable without scrolling right and left. I prefer the current layout.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, my screen isn't particularly wide so I had to scroll right and left multiple times and neither do the very big and inconsistent font sizes help. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an experiment, I've taken out the big fonts. Does this look better? Ground Zero (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah. Twsabin (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support It's easier to follow with the table. Twsabin (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Although the smaller-text format looks better, other Wikivoyage policy pages use prose and bullet points, rather than tables. I'd prefer to keep it that way, at least until Mediawiki finally becomes fully mobile-friendly.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO, the table looks fine on mobile. Twsabin (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks fine on your mobile (and mine too), but not on everyone's. And it would only take one additional column for it to not work on mine. I'm reluctant to remove tables where they already exist (e.g. some of our phrasebooks), but adding more would make WV less user-friendly. It's a shame, because I like a good table.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, exactly. I need to scroll right and left in order to read the table. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't really meant to change anyone's mind, but I'll just put it on the record that I didn't test it on a physical mobile device, but using software to see what the mobile version of the site looks like on different resolutions. I'll think about a way to retain the benefits of the table, but using bullets instead (it would still be different from the current policy page version, i.e. more visually structured) Twsabin (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]