Talk:Exasecond
Exasecond was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was CONSENSUS NOT REACHED
An amount of time that has no practical use. First, we don't use positive SI prefixes attatched to second in any practical way; we use times like days and years. Second (no pun please,) this amount of time is more than twice the universe's known age. How is this article useful?? 66.32.250.110 00:24, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone would have objected if you had been bold an redirected to 1 E18 s. And that is what I think should be done. — David Remahl 00:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: redirect, but add the word 'exasecond' to 1 E18 s. i think i'll start using this word. Wolfman 00:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: I sort of agree that the measure is useless. 1 E18 s claims to list times in the range of 1 E18–1 E19 s, however, the only listed time is 1 E12 s, the projected lifetime of the Universe. That's six orders of magnitude. I don't agree that SI prefixes to seconds are useless, since they provide a non-Earth-centric way of discussing time. It seems silly to discuss astronomical amounts of time using solar Earth years. — David Remahl 01:06, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, it's far less Terra-centric to discuss them using units of 1/86400 of the earth's period rotation multiplied by powers of the number of human fingers. :-) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Hehe, I do know what the second was derived from, but I believe it is now defined in terms of some property of Caesium. And I think the aliens will appreciate if we stick to one unit and don't confuse matters further. Lets choose the SI one ;-) — David Remahl 01:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Don't tell me, let me guess... in SI the base of the number system is defined as the atomic number of neon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Does SI mandate the use of a particular base? — David Remahl 02:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you, Dpbsmith, you have brightened my day significantly. Pnot 06:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Beautiful :-) Isomorphic 00:26, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- ROFL! This VfD should be archived in BJAODN except... except... it is too good to be a Bad Joke. :-) SWAdair | Talk 08:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Don't tell me, let me guess... in SI the base of the number system is defined as the atomic number of neon. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Hehe, I do know what the second was derived from, but I believe it is now defined in terms of some property of Caesium. And I think the aliens will appreciate if we stick to one unit and don't confuse matters further. Lets choose the SI one ;-) — David Remahl 01:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, it's far less Terra-centric to discuss them using units of 1/86400 of the earth's period rotation multiplied by powers of the number of human fingers. :-) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Don't delete. More than twice the age of the universe maybe, but the universe is projected to survive for many hundreds of billions of years yet (probably), more-or-less reasonable threories of which are seriously debated by cosmologists, and those spare exaseconds might just come in handy yet.--Pharos 01:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- All be the same in a hundred years, that's what I say...
- Do you oppose a redirect too? The current article duplicates most of the info on 1 E18 s. — David Remahl 02:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Can be brought back when the universe is at least an exasecond old. --Improv 06:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I've taken this obvious opportunity to set up a redirect. Please folks, when something can be redirected in such an obvious way, don't add it to VfD. —siroχo 07:22, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- You're right. And, redirects and merge-and-redirects are visible to everyone, are revertible by everyone, don't destroy information, can be performed by non-sysops, and don't require group approval. I've noticed that they don't seem to rile people so much, either; I don't know whether that's because of the above, or whether it's just because they aren't as attention-getting. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- SI prefix + measure of something != article. Delete. Lord Bob 23:41, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as redirected, as per above comment by Siroxo. --Goobergunch 20:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Start a discussion about improving the Exasecond page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Exasecond" page.
