Talk:Time formatting and storage bugs

Year 2000 problem

I added some information about the year 2000 problem and accidentaly deleted some stuff. Fortunately, the deleted stuff is added back but 1 thing I deleted on purpose is also back. This is the information in question: "Follow-on problems caused by certain temporary fixes to the Y2K problem will crop up at various points in the 21st century. Some programs were made Y2K-compliant by continuing to use two digit years, but picking an arbitrary year prior to which those years are interpreted as 20xx, and after which are interpreted as 19xx.

For example, a program may have been changed so that it treats two-digit year values 00–68 as referring to 2000 through 2068, and values 69–99 as referring to 1969 through 1999. Such a program will not be able to correctly deal with years beyond 2068.

For applications required to calculate the birth year (or another past year), such an algorithm has long been used to overcome the Year 1900 problem, but it has failed to recognise people over 100 years old." This does not appear very relevant to the year 2000 problem except for the last part. Just to clarify, 2000 was part of the 2nd millennium and the 20th century but not the third millennium and the 21st century. Everything in the quote should be deleted except for the paragraph at the bottom, as it seems valuable for further discussion. It is unnecessary to add it back. 2601:483:400:1CD0:F363:3DBC:56E1:2313 (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Other sections, such as Year 1975, Year 1993 (rehashed in Year 2007), and First GPS Rollover also discuss problems with the fixes used. What I assume are basically follow-up problems from Y2K are discussed in Microsoft Schedule+ (in Year 2020), Year 2040, Year 2069, and Year 2080. Solomon Ucko (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. 2601:483:400:20D0:45E:C909:59C4:BCFF (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

29.2.2016

lots models of Sony Ericsson cell phones stopped correctly working at 2016 leap day (and every next leap year) prety funy (dysplaying nonsense date and time, like 32.29.1272 12:76), often unable to fix it without factory reset... most people missed their alarm clock :) viz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Ericsson_K770#Date_bug ... 'm not good in english to add this issue, but someone should :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.255.168.12 (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Pros and cons of transcluding text from other articles

Pros:

• Automatic synchronization
• Clearer relationship

Cons:

• Causes editor confusion
• Possible differing relevance

I see that some paragraphs under Time formatting and storage bugs#Years 4000, 8000, etc. match those under Gregorian calendar#Accuracy, so I thought that the former should just transclude paragraphs from the latter for automatic synchronization as in Special:Diff/1285928426/1287117353. But then Jc3s5h has reverted my changes, so do other editors agree that the cons outweigh the pros? GTrang (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I think one disadvantage is that one typically finds systems of transcluding information in selected sets of template documentation and help pages. See, for example, Help:Citation Style 1, {{Cite book}}, {{Cite journal}}, etc. Since this documentation is usually only edited by a few editors, this group of editors can manage to work through the intricacies. Also, the theme of the related pages is very similar, so a change on one page probably will be appropriate for the others.

I've never seen just plain transclusions before in main space articles, although there are transclusions of infoboxes and templates, such as {{Calendar}}, that provide lists of related articles. I'd be concerned that the "transcluded from" article could be altered without knowledge of, or concern for, whether the changes are appropriate for one or more articles it is trancluded to. Also, it could cause confusion when trying to reuse a citation that is present in the transcluded text in the "translated to" article.

Examples of problems I can imagine:

A word is defined in the transcluded text, and that definition is relied on later in the "transcluded to" article. Later, the definition is removed in the "trancluded from" article.

A version of software is discussed both in the "transcluded from" text and another part of the "transcluded to" article. Later, the version of software is updated in the "transcluded from" article but not in the "transcluded to" article. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

A third opinion on this matter would also be appreciated. GTrang (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I say transclude. Vandalism is unlikely because Gregorian calendar is semi-protected and this topic isn't controversial. An editor will be redirected to the transcluded page and the time formatting / storage bug for 4000, 8000, etc. is not a bug specific to storage, but rather a bug of the Gregorian Calendar itself. Therefore, it has the same relevance. Closetside (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Year 2058 Fourth GPS rollover

Year 2058 Fourth GPS rollover

>> The GPS week number rollover will occur for the fourth time on May 26, 2058, at 23:59:41.

Are you sure about that date? Other sources state 07/07/2058. This seems the most official.

https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/meetings/2019/09/clarifying-continuous-GPS-time.pdf 87.191.40.226 (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Starfall2015:, I see that you added the May 2058 date but did not provide any citation to support this claim. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

1982 and Social Security Adminnistration

I worked there and recall having computers blow up in January 1982. The problem was that newborns were being added to the rolls as children of social security recipients. The system checked the date on which these children would turn 18…and the 2-digit year field in the database tried to roll over to 2000 and blew up. ~2026-77238-1 (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)