Brian Garrett said:
> 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".
The initial derivation of the
Brian Garrett wrote:
> 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)
Actually it *is* called a "leap day". It is the "leap year" terminology
that is the odd one out.
-zefram
- Original Message -
From: "Ed Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
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
Ed Davies wrote:
>However, it's a horrible article and really needs reorganization
>as some of the paragraphs have suffered serious mission creep.
I edited quite a lot of time-related articles last year, and couldn't
figure out what to do with it. I started off with the articles on
astronomical t
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 a
