Re: [LEAPSECS] Wikipedia article

From: Brian Garrett <mgy1912_at_cox.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:13:56 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Davies" <ls_at_EDAVIES.NILDRAM.CO.UK>
To: <LEAPSECS_at_ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 3:55 PM
Subject: [LEAPSECS] Wikipedia article


> Thanks to those who confirmed the ITU text on when leap seconds can
> be applied.
>
> I've made two small edits to the Wikipedia article to correct
> parts which were wrong or potentially misleading (plus a slightly
> tongue-in-cheek remark in the discussion page)
>
> However, it's a horrible article and really needs reorganization
> as some of the paragraphs have suffered serious mission creep.
>
> I don't even like the first sentence. "Intercalary" seems wrong
> to me as a leap second is part of the day it is applied to, not
> between days. I thought about changing it but decided I might
> be being a bit blinkered in my definition of "intercalary".
> Thoughts?
>
> Ed.
>
The French-language term for leap second is "second intercalaire", so
calling a leap second "intercalary" has a linguistic precedent if nothing
else. Besides, the English term "leap second" is a misnomer--a leap year is
a year with an extra day in it (and the inserted day is *not* called a leap
day) so by analogy the insertion of a second should probably have been
termed a "leap minute". But that's all cesium over the dam, now.


Brian
Received on Tue Jan 02 2007 - 21:14:24 PST