Talk:ISO 8601

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ISO 8601 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Time Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from ISO 8601 usage was copied or moved into ISO 8601 with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

You can use quite a couple templates, in the YYYY-MM-DD date format

{{date|2=ISO}} or {{ISO date}} could be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.29.4 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 10 November 2018 UTC (UTC)

On 17 January 2024 Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) made an edit which changed many dash-like character changes, quite a few of which were incorrect or inadvisable. For example, the article presented ""2004-05" as valid ISO 8601 notation for May 2004, which it is. The edit changed it to "2004–05" (that is, using an n-dash character) which has an entirely different meaning, 2004-2005. In another spot "−05:00 was changed to "−05:00" which isn't incorrect, but presents difficulties for editors, because in edit mode it is just about impossible to distinguish the various dash-like characters. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This (in Times):

ISO 8601-1:2019 allows the T to be omitted in the extended format, as in "13:47:30", but only allows the T to be omitted in the basic format when there is no risk of confusion with date expressions.

contradicts this (in Combined date and time representations):

In ISO 8601:2004 it was permitted to omit the "T" character by mutual agreement as in "200704051430",[37] but this provision was removed in ISO 8601-1:2019.

Lacking access to the published standard, I've no way of ascertaining which is correct. Roger Rohrbach (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's meant by the 1st statement is that "194705" is not allowed as a time (except when context implies it has to be time), because it could mean May 1947. It would have to be "T194705" or "19:47:05" to be unambiguously a time and not a date. The 2nd statement applies only when a date and a time are combined. There is no contradiction. Indefatigable (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"ISO 8601:2004 fixes a reference calendar date to the Gregorian calendar of 20 May 1875 as the date the Convention du Mètre was signed in Paris": This is good. This gives each day an absolute date, for example the day after this event is called 21 May 1875, and the day before it 19 May 1875. Similarly, to prove that today is 2024/8/26 is to prove that exactly 54520 days, or about 4710528000 seconds, have elapsed since the event.

But we should have fixed an event for a time to the accuracy of a second, since this affects when we switch the date! For example, some particular moment during the signature could have been defined to have happened at, say, exactly 20 May 1875 12:00:00 UTC. Unfortunately, I don't think the signature is possible to be fixed within a second ... 14.52.231.91 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is intentionally vague about time keeping. For example, time can be local time in an unspecified time zone, or even a time before time zones were invented. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well if I understood it correctly ... So we switch from a day to the next day just because all clocks in the world agree to do so :) 14.52.231.91 (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does ISO 8601 clarify Year duration, for example if a duration is 3 years, was one of them a leap year? Even more important for Months, if a duration is 3 months, was it Jan, Feb, March — 90 or 91 days, depending on leap year, or July, August, September —92 days? GeorgeHarnish (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]