Talk:Time zone/Archive 1

message: This says that UTC is the official term. Official according to whom? In the UK the official term is GMT I think. Mark Richards 22:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, GMT is not exactly equal to UTC. You can get some information about that at e.g. http://sts.sunyit.edu/timetech/gmt-utc.html, or in the Greenwich Mean Time article. --Mormegil 11:02, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: GMT/UTC

message: The map produced by CIA partitioned Kazakhstan into +5 and +6, while ths page of Time zone states +4 to +6. (So is the Kazakhstan page). --chochopk
: According to Oscar van Vlijmen, Kazakhstan "does no longer observe DST since 2005-03-15. The central time zone with UTC+5 merged with the western time zone with UTC+4 to form one UTC+5 zone, by the end of 2004." --Chochopk 08:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kazakhstan 

message: I recently added local time as a redirect to time zone, and subsequently bolded local time in the article, on the presumption that it is a common phrase used in reference to the time at a particular location, and is appropriate in many contexts to refer to such a time.  (For example, the local time in Brisbane, Australia, is 10:23 PM.)  I would just revert to my previous edit, but the calculating local time article leaves me a little unsatisfied (I considered redirecting local time to there, but time zone seemed closer to the usual meaning).  Could anyone comment on the relationship between the above-mentioned articles?  Ben Cairns 12:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Calculating local time was apparently written by the same person who began the time zone article because of the similarity between them. Moreover, I see no need for calculating local time — subtracting one time zone from another seems to be so obvious as to not need explanation. I recommend merging calculating local time into time zone by simply adding one sentence about it to time zone, leaving calculating local time as a redirect itself. — Joe Kress 07:48, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
I agree.  Meanwhile, I've put local time back in with a minor edit.  Ben Cairns 00:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: If you look at other pages, the only phrases bolded in the introduction are ones that are redirects to the same page. It is a formatting thing, according to the manual of style: If the subject of the article has more than one name, each new form of the name should be in bold on its first appearance. Unless the subject (i.e. time zones) is also named "local time" then it should not be bolded lest it be confused that it might be an alternate name for the article.-- 23:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry, completely my fault. It is just that it doesn't appear on "what links here" page. I guess there are over 500 pages that link to Time Zone. I did look over that list twice. My appolgies. -- 05:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local time 

message: An extensive discussion regarding the Time Cube edit war has been taking place at Talk:Greenwich Mean Time#Time Cube discussion. I hope the issues have been resolved for now and am unprotecting this page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing protection 

message: The article implies that UTC and GMT are the same.  I don't believe that this is the case.  IIUC, GMT is defined as a number of days (rotations of the earth relative w.r.t. the sun) and UTC is defined as a number of SI seconds (oscillations of cesium atom, or some such thing).  I think that the following link may explain the difference:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part3/
Also, as someone has commented already, the GMT article explains the difference.  -- Wmarkham 16:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, everywhere that the article implies that GMT and UTC are the same is appropriate. They are indeed synonyms as far as the BBC is concerned as the article states and as your own citation states: "BBC still uses this abbreviation [GMT] for patriotic reasons ;-) as a synonym for UTC" (and in Greenwich itself). The other place is in maritime usage where GMT is also a synonym for UTC. And of course, UTC did not exist before 1972 thus GMT is the only correct term to use in the history section. I've change the two true errors in the "List" explanation. — Joe Kress 06:42, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
You're right.  Re-reading the article, it does make the difference clear.  Thanks for looking at this, though.  I'm sorry about my confusion.  -- Wmarkham 02:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Done -- Russell E 04:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  UTC vs GMT 

message: The sentence "Multiple time zones were first proposed by Charles F. Dowd about 1863 for American railroads as a teacher to his students" is not at all clear to me. I'm no expert on time zones so don't know the history but the best reading of it I can discern is that it means that Professor Dowd's first suggestion of different timezones, to be used by the American railways, was made to his students. If this is so then perhaps a better formulation would be "Professor Charles F Dowd first proposed multiple timezones to his students, for use by the American railroads." Daduzi 11:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous/clumsy sentence 

message: How about splitting the zones into seperate articles. there one could be more precise and it is an easy look up for others
!!please use template talk page!! thx
Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not support a split into 39 or so time zones because some would then be too small, but I do support a split into an introduction plus two lists, one for the western hemisphere and another for the eastern hemisphere (including UTC+0), to reduce the article's size to a more manageable level. — Joe Kress 20:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just splitting the zones into a single separate article to start with?  Suggested title: "List of time zones".  Where appropriate, they should also link to existing articles, such as "Australian time zones". Stephen.frede 05:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: support. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting the zones into seperate articles

message: As I was making a better map, these countries/regions gave me some trouble. Most of them are zone/DST changes in the past 10 years. I think we should actively monitor them (including each of their own wiki articles, or even the wiki articles of their sub entities)
*French Polynesia
* All the exceptions in Canada
:Its about time Canadian time zone exceptions.
:Canadian time zone maps
* United States
** Hawaii & Midway Atoll
** Indiana
** Arizona
*** Navajo Nation
* Mexico
** Sonora
** Chihuahua
* Nicaragua
* Uruguay
* Tunisia
* Libya
* Sudan
* Georgia
* Russia
**Astrakhan
**Saratov
**Ulyanovsk
**Volgograd
**Kirov
**Tomsk
*Kazakhstan (especially the western part)
*Kyrgyzstan
*Mongolia
And I think it's silly to sometimes keep two entries for the same region (i.e. one from CIA, another from NAO). There is only one true timezone for each region. As we can see from the CIA map, it contains many errors.
--Chochopk 07:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a lot of work. I doubt that individual articles would have time zone info. However, I'm sure that many are monitored by their residents, so a query to their talk page may produce results (many Wikipedia editors do not register and so cannot monitor their country's page). For recently changed zones, the best info would include the date or at least the year of the change. Before the Internet became popular, my best sources of time zone info were (and still are) the CIA map (revised periodically), the map of US embassies (I haven't seen a revised version in many years), and the time zone lists in the Air Almanac and the Nautical Almanac (updated annually). The Air Almanac may cease publication soon because of the advent of GPS satellites. The Nautical Almanac may or may not follow suit. The lists in both publications originate in Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office. I added the two versions of Russian time zones because I could not decide which source was more correct or up-to-date. I am not as willing as you seem to be to give up on the CIA map. — Joe Kress 18:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic Countries/regions 

message: Is there a wiki article about DST rules of each observing country? If not, we should start one. Timezone information w/o DST rules isn't really complete =)
--Chochopk 07:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More work! Because I am leary of the veracity of online sources, the best source of world-wide DST rules would be the "Legal Time" list in the Admiralty List of Radio Signals (vol. 2), also from Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office (updated annually, with changes also included in the weekly "Notice to Mariners"). Unfortunately, only large marine supply stores have it. I last consulted the copy in the NOAA Central Library in Washington, DC in 1999. – Joe Kress 18:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DST Rule 

message: I plan to write an article about the various time zone and daylight saving anomalies in Australia.  I checked :Category:Time zones to see what sort of naming format was used.  The only comparable articles were Time in New Zealand, United States time zones, Hong Kong Time, Nepal Time.  As a result my article would be called either Time in Australia, Australian time zones, or Australian Time - none of which were in line with the article name I was preferring - Time zones in Australia.
Other articles such as China Standard Time would also be better suited as Time zones in China as they discuss the history of time zone changes in the country, not just the current zone time.
More full articles, (such as Time zones in Canada) could be created from merging others, such as Newfoundland Standard Time Zone, Yukon Standard Time Zone, and so on.
Is there a consensus to standarise the articles to a common naming scheme? -- Chuq 09:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have written an Australian time zones entry. Actually, I wrote it after you posted your message above, but I only just found the message today. So, sorry about that. It would be a good place for info on daylight savings too, so go for it! I was planning on doing it myself eventually but it has a fairly long and potted history that I wasn't looking forward to researching! -- Russell E 04:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I should add, I haven't got around to putting in links to the entry or making redirects for Australian Eastern Standard Time etc yet (again, feel free) --Russell E 05:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems at all - I've added some details to it, including a couple of maps, but there is still a lot more to go! -- Chuq 13:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time zone article naming format 

message: This article has far too many external links, to sites of dubious use / commercial. I intend deleting a lot of them, using WP:EL as a guide. Thanks/wangi 11:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now done, I've left only one of the generic "what's the time there" type sites. wangi 11:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cull the links 

message: The new World Almanac and Book of Facts shows Kiribati back to the east side of the International Date Line.  I think they changed it just to capitalize off New Years Eve 1999-2000 and I assume they've changed it back.  I don't have anything else to go off of, so I won't change it, but if somebody could find a place to check it, it should be updated.  Rt66lt 19:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that. The CIA map in the article still shows Kiribati split by the Date Line, since they never acknowledged Kiribati's change in 1995. The other major source mentioned in the article, the map by Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office seems ambivalent: It shows Kiribati split, but nevertheless codes its two eastern island groups as M* (+13) and M† (+14), clearly indicating that the belong west of the Date Line. Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office is the source of all time zone info published by the United States Naval Observatory's Nautical Almanac Office, contained in both their Air Almanac (soon to cease publication) and their Nautical Almanac. I suspect that the World Almanac never showed the Kiribati split, or if they did, that they are now basing their info on the CIA map, disregarding the Nautical Almanac. — Joe Kress 05:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kiribati