This article is rated C-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 articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. China Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The top version of this wiki has some information written in the notes section that sounds either true or jibberish (edited by 64.122.219.100 on 05:13, 1 April 2008). Can someone confirm this? --Albert yusuke (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time for my 3x years living on the Earth to hear that there are 100 ke in a day! I wonder where did the original author wrote this passage? We have been knowing that each double hour is divided into 8 ke. Therefore, computerized fortune-telling program need to know only a person's birthday up to a quarter of an hour. If a day was divided into 100 ke, I wonder how can people tell the time? Before that, we can say "half past three p.m." as "申時二刻" (the second quarter of the 9th double hour". But you cannot divide the 100 ke equally under the twelve double hours, right? -- Tomchiukc 16:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my text again, you will find that the ardent Jesuit missionaries had an itching finger and changed the original Chinese invention to 8x12=96 "new" ke a day, which seems OK with your fortune-telling..........

I added my source so you can check it out! :) Kurtan 00:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed your point. If you have the ke=centiday, you can skip both minutes and [double] hours. You just count the kes from midnight=0 one night on till noon=50 and the day on again till midnigt=100 ! :) Kurtan 00:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it is written now speculates that the French Revolutionary time/calendar system would have been successfully adopted if they'd known about the ke/short-quarter-hour. There's no way anyone can make that call, it should be rewritten.

The article also uses the word "unfortunate" which to me suggests an agenda.

agreed, the tone of the whole article seems wrong to me, ill try to do something about it --gwc 17:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know for sure that the French revolutionaries were entirely unaware? The article says that the Jesuits were aware of it, and they were there about a century before the revolution, and they were also in France. The 10x100x100 model was obviously based upon existing European analog clocks, but that does not prove that they had not heard of the Chinese method.

As for the French not using 100/day units, the laws establishing decimal time stated, Le jour, de minuit à minuit, est divisé en dix parties ou heures, chaque partie en dix autres, ainsi de suite jusqu’à la plus petite portion commensurable de la durée. The fact that these "dix autres" were intermediate between decimal hours and decimal minutes gives them the same position that quarters have to standard hours and minutes, which are still used today.

As for the centiday, this is not accepted for use with SI. In fact, it is expressly prohibited. The day (d) is accepted for use with the SI, but not with prefixes. See the SI brochure, which states:

Prefix names and symbols are used with a number of non-SI units (see Chapter 4), but they are never used with the units of time: minute, min; hour, h; day, d.

--Nike 08:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article references

the Shuowen Jiezi" from Xu Shen, "

There are several problems with this citation. First, the quote marks don't seem to make any sense. Second, the Shuowen Jiezi apparently is a dictionary by Xu Shen, not from Xu Shen. Finally, the editor does not say what publisher published the version that was relied on for this article. I've never seen this dictionary, and I don't know if you can just look up ke as you would in a modern dictionary. If not, some directions about how to look up ke would be in order.

I am asking about this because I want to add the reference to the article [Metrication]. Since I don't speak Chinese, I can't do so unless I can find a reliable English translation. --Gerry Ashton 23:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot class something as a decimal system simply because it has (or had) one ratio of a power of ten. In a decimal system, all the ratios need to be powers of ten. From this article and the Chinese calendar article, it appears that none of the other ratios are powers of ten. Using the logic in this article, we could say that Western time-keeping is septenary because there are 7 days in a week!! -- 203.20.101.203 (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orienomesh-w made some major changes. I do not know enough on the subject to judge whether it is an improvement, but there seems to be a translation issue. The grammar is so odd that I find some parts confusing. I don't think that "there're" is a word, and contractions are not appropriate in any case. And the repeated use of "scales" seems to be a mistranslation, as I am unfamiliar with use of the word in this context. Something like "etched markings" seems to be what the editor may have meant, as the article previously stated. However, I am hesitant to fix the grammar, since I don't know enough about the subject.

Another thing that occurs to me, which was retained from the previous version, is that "centiday" is not really a thing, just something once suggested but never adopted as a unit. It might be worth mentioning here, but needs context. --Nike (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that 12 shi within the article arr transliterated as zi-sh, chou-sh, yin-sh, etc. Please note that the syllable is pronounced shi in Standard Chinese. Hope someone correct the mistake. Super Wang 03:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Super Wang 03:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The syllable is absolutely pronounced 'sh'. On the other hand, that sound is written 'shi' in pinyin, which is what Wikipedia should default to. — LlywelynII 21:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Petersen, Jens Østergård, "The Taiping Jing and the A.D. 102 Clepsydra Reform", Acta Orientalia, vol. Vol. 53, Copenhagen, pp. 122–158 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help).

has a good treatment of the general system, its use, and some various reforms and their rationales.  — LlywelynII 21:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due appreciation to the work that went into it, this article and its companion section at Chinese calendar currently read like the Google Translate version of Time Cube, which is a shame since they are talking about interesting and important topics. The entirety of this article that is not nonsense seems to come from here. That article needs to be used to rebuild this article from the ground up, starting—as Nike mentioned above—with the removal of the WP:OR "translations" of the Chinese terms with oddities like "centiday".

The article is also clearly in the wrong place. Even if we were using these words (which we shouldn't), the "traditional" should precede the "Chinese" as with TCM and this isn't a proper name that takes all caps. Really, "time system" isn't a thing. It should be Traditional Chinese timekeeping or whatever similar phrasing Cambridge, Oxford, et al. use for describing these systems. — LlywelynII 14:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a lot of elbow grease (keyboard grease?) to clean up this page and phrase things in a way that makes sense. I also moved the content from the Chinese calendar article's section on timekeeping to here, to keep the information in one place. I don't speak or read Chinese, but I was able to find sources with a combination of ctrl+f and Google Translate.

The one section I haven't been able to find any backup for is this one from Chinese calendar:

I'm assuming this has something to do with the Han-era system, just with another division of time added. I found one Chinese-language article that compares time systems throughout Chinese history, and most have a division of time called "rooster crows" that falls around 03:00. It even indicates that the Huainanzi uses it as a time unit, though I can't find anything on my own. Someone who can actually read Chinese might be able to find a source and explain it. For now, I'm just leaving it here and not within the article.

--A garbage person (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This can be added back in, but I think that there are enough sources for the major concepts that it can be removed. I've also made sure to add {citation needed} wherever there's a statement I haven't been able to back up.

--A garbage person (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Centiday has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13 § Centiday until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]