Talk:Daylight saving time/Archive 3

message: The graphic courtesy of some DOD employee of the clock hands being turned back has the caption advising that the time change occurs at 2am on October 28th.  Unfortunately, the graphic was created in 2005 when that was true, but this year it is 2am on October 29th!
And, of course, that was never the case in many parts of the world! Wake 03:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the caption to make it clear that the announcement was for an older year, and just in the U.S. Eubulides 20:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I the only one that noticed? 

message: * The real question rises from time to time, that why not just adjust the clocks by 30 minutes and leave it at that. Golden middle road would remove the clock adjusting and wouldn't be so big difference anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.197.215.210 (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Splitting the difference avoids clock-shift problems, but does not provide as much afternoon leisure time in the summer. A few places do it. One example is central-western Arizona, which is permanently about 30 minutes ahead of local mean time. Eubulides 05:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DST Proposed changes 

message: In (ca) 1990, I was traveling via railroad in the U.S.A. when the change over from DST to standard time took place.  The train stopped in the desert for an hour, in order to keep on schedule. We were told that all trains in the time zone had stopped.  It might be interesting to find out what happens in the spring, and how trains traveling into/outof/through Arizona or other areas not making the changes to/from DST are affected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.53.197.12 (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page now says "Disruption to … travel … is not uncommon when clocks or rules change." Eubulides 08:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Traditionally, it was too much hassle to change the schedule (it was a printed document), so they just slowed down the trains or sped them up and tried to make the schedule as best they could. Airline schedules are handled similarly, I expect. Anyway, it's not clear to me that the details are worth discussing in the main page. Eubulides 17:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow.  That is positively bizarre.  It seems like there has got to be some relatively dead-time in the schedule to handle "spring-forward" sanely,  And for "fall back," why can't you just wait the extra hour at the terminal?  (Hint:  For anyone getting off at the terminal, it's not actually a wait.)  As I said, wow. --Mr z 08:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is generic dead-time to cushion any sort of delay; I don't think it'd be any larger for this particular delay. At 02:00 trains tend to be in the middle of nowhere so there won't be much going on near the terminal either. I imagine most passengers are asleep and don't care where the train stops. Eubulides 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Railroads, U.S.A. 

message: Windows Vista supports at most two DST start and stop rules per time zone setting. For example, in Brazil where DST rules commonly change every year, a Vista setting would support the current and previous year's time stamps, while mishandling some older time stamps.
This section appears to be unsubstantiated guesswork. Sources should be cited.
Only one set of "start and stop rules" is in use at any given time but the system can support a large range of years both in the past and into the future. See the data for "Israel Standard Time" in Vista as an example (it has rules from 2004 to 2023, inclusive).
Vista shipped with 2006 and 2007 entries for Brasilia, but it can support a larger range of historic data as required. Unfortunately the Brazilian government does not appear to give much warning about upcoming DST changes.
213.199.145.11 17:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation added. According Microsoft, Vista may have a large catalog of rule sets, but it can use at most two set of rules at any given time, and pre-Vista Windows can use at most one rule set. Eubulides 21:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 

message: says "A report last year by the Energy Department projected savings in electricity at four-tenths of a percent each day of extended daylight savings time.... The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a nonprofit group, estimates that the cumulative benefit through 2020 of longer daylight saving time would be a saving of $4.4 billion and 10.8 million metric tons less carbon spewed into the air."  I looked for these reports in all the obvious places (e.g., aceee.org, doe.gov) but could not find them.  Does anyone know where they are?  The "Rationale" section is a bit weak right now and could use some strong citations.  Eubulides 05:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-03-05 NYT story cites mysterious ACEEE, 2006 Energy Dept. studies 

message: Is there any way to remove the annoying or at the very least redundant leading zeroes to the times?
71.102.144.27 03:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, like the leading zero in the "03:43" in your comment? That's inserted automatically by Wikipedia. Or if you're talking about the leading zero in times like "02:00" in the main page, that is standard  ISO 8601 time format.  The  Wikipedia manual of style says that leading zero is OK there. Eubulides 05:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Leading zeroes

message: Something like this graph would be very helpful in helping visualize what actually happens. --Belg4mit 17:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Ideally it would be an SVG image that is semiautomatically generated from the underlying equation. London would be a good choice for the location, as that is what motivated Willett. (But I haven't had time to do it….) Eubulides 20:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks very much for contributing the graph; it's very helpful. Eubulides 17:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph 

message: Is this right?  It doesn't make sense to me.  From the article:
...it established DST from the last Sunday in March to the last Sunday in October. The law, however, proved so unpopular, mostly because it obliged people to rise and go to bed earlier than had become customary since the advent of electricity, that it was repealed after 1919, when Congress overrode President Woodrow Wilson's veto of the repeal...
Now if it established DST during the summer, people would be getting up *later* by hour if they synchronized activites to the sun.  That is, if the sun rose at 6 and you want to get up with this, it would rise at 7.  Similarly in the evening if you normally went to bed at sunset 8 PM, you would now go to bed at 9 PM by hour.
Of course, there is the one-time need to get up an hour earlier due to the shortened night in the spring, but this is a one-time thing and not getting up "earlier" e.g. associated with the advent of electricity.
If the person wanted to, say, go to bed 2 hours after sunset, yes, you would feel you were forced to go to bed "earlier" due to the fact sunset occurs at a later numerical hour.  I think this is what the article meant, but it is quite confusing as described in the article.  Thoughts? --User:gsm996  13:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing that. I have simplified the offending wording by noting that farmers objected, and have added an explanation of one of their objections in the "Benefits and drawbacks" section. Eubulides 20:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The assumption, I think, is that workers typically show up at a fixed time like 08:00, not at a varying time like sunrise. So (assuming the workers agree, e.g., because of overtime pay) a builder can get an extra hour's work from each laborer during summer.  However, now that I think about it, the assertion that Willett was motivated by this financial interest is not supported by any of the documentation I know of, so that implication of the statement, at any rate, should be reworded. I'll look into that. Eubulides 00:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content correct? 

message: What does the expression semiannual effect mean in the Traffic fatalities?
Does it means that this happens two time in the year? By the way the changing date are usually not 6 months separated. 
Could someone who knows English better than me and who knows the mentioned study, clarify (if this is the case) that the 0.7% reduction in traffic fatalities, reported by the is an overall average on all the period when DST applies, while the study reports an increase of fatalities on the Monday after a Sunday shifts. However it should be note that the increased of fatalities is not only in the day after the shift, but also in the following days. So adding a value about a period about something like one week, would be appreciate. AnyFile 11:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reporting that. Semiannual is wrong, as you mentioned, so I've changed it to twice-yearly. The 0.7% applies to all the period where DST is in effect, so I added "during DST" to clarify that. I also fixed a bug about exactly when the effect occurs. It occurs only in one day (Monday) in spring, and one day (Sunday) in fall, assuming the transition occurs Sunday. Eubulides 17:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you two think semiannual means exactly? --Belg4mit 16:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Semi" means "half" and "annual" means "year", so it means every half-year. Merriam-Webster's definition gives this meaning, along with the other meaning about "twice a year".  But if I washed my car on January 1, then again on January 2, and never again for the rest of the year, I wouldn't call it my "semiannual" car wash.  "Every six months" is the more-precise meaning. Eubulides 02:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  semiannual effect 

message: Is the first line of clocks actually a reference to daylight savings time, or is this speculation?Dragon guy 01:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think it has anything to do with it. I'm going to remove it until someone gives a citable source saying it was about BST. I find it extremely unlikely that Martin went "Hmm, I think I'll write a song about daylight savings time". The link to Clocks says nothing about it.
* Coldplay's Grammy-winning record "Clocks" (2003) was co-written and performed by Chris Martin, great-great grandson of DST inventor William Willett. The song's first line is "Lights go out and I can't be saved". 
mattbuck 02:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The text in question does not claim that the song's first line is a reference to DST. The cultural connection is via Willett and the title "Clocks". It's possible that the first line is a coincidence, but if so, it is a remarkable one. I'll reinsert the line with comments to that effect; I hope this resolves any controversy. (Perhaps a Coldplay wizard could chime in?) Eubulides 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The Chris Martin entry has a source. Lord Tanlaw is another source; see his speech before the House of Lords on 2006-03-24. I see now that an anonymous user has removed 'The song's first line is "Lights go out and I can't be saved".' without comment; would anyone object if I put it back in? and if so, why? Eubulides 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There were no objections so I added it, with a stronger caveat this time. Eubulides 23:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: But all cultural references are minor facts. This one is striking. The connection between "Lights go out and I can't be saved" and DST has been mentioned in The Fayettville Observer (March 8), The Bakersfield Californian (March 9), and My Coldplay.com (March 10). But now that you mention it, the current text is too strong: it claims that the song is not  about DST, but it's possible that DST was in the back of Martin's mind during composition. I adjusted the wording to fix this, and also (I hope) to make the wording more elegant. Eubulides 05:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, this is the sort of citation that I was asking for. I have no contest with this information now. Dragon guy 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural References 

message: The section titled "Paternalism" is questionable at best. WiccaWeb 03:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what sense is it questionable? The current wording? the basic idea? Eubulides 04:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I retitled the section "social choice" and added a reference to Thomas C. Schelling's oft-cited article on the subject. Better? Eubulides 21:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paternalism 

message: The current placement of the first two images is awkward in my browser. First, I have a high-resolution screen, and the 100px override of the spring-forward clock image makes it small. I'd rather have the user decide this thumbnail size, not the web page. Second, the map squishes the table of contents and it looks really ugly if the browser window is narrow. I'd rather move the map to the "When it starts and stops" section, which has a reference to "Daylight saving time around the world" and talks about how start and ed dates and times vary with location. Not only is this a more logical place for the map, it'll lay out much more nicely. Comments? Eubulides 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody commented, so I made the change. Eubulides 07:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the map was indeed too big, I still think it belongs at the top of the article. --~ ~ James Hetfield (previously Wesborland) ~ ~ 14:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main problem occurs when we put two images right next to each other at the top; that doesn't format well with the table of contents. One option is to put the map at the top, and then put the "spring forward" clock in the "When it starts and stops" section, where the text talks about shifting at 02:00. It used to be like that; maybe that was better. Eubulides 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was, since the map describes which countries use or used DST while the clock is just an... ornament. --~ ~ James Hetfield (previously Wesborland) ~ ~ 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but now the map image has an explicit width. This causes it to be smaller on my browser than it would ordinarily be, as I have a hi-res monitor and default to more pixels per thumbnail. How about if we omit the explicit width? Even with the default 180px width the map is still easily legible enough to see the pattern of which countries use DST and which don't, which is all that's needed here. (I wish Wikipedia had a thumbnail option saying "twice as much width as usual" but alas it does not.) Eubulides 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map should not collide with table of contents 

message: The following link http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928388 shows that Microsoft have had to updated their timezone for the U.S. Should we note this in the article? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that link were current, Y2K7 would be a better place for it. But Y2K7 already has a link to the February 2007 cumulative time zone update for Microsoft Windows operating systems, which supersedes the link you mentioned. So I don't think any changes are needed here. Eubulides 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. changes 

message: Now that the U.S. DST hoopla has died down, I'm thinking of having this page undergo peer review with the idea of eventually having it be nominated for Good Article or Featured Article status. I've never done this before; I've never really edited any other page before, other than very minor edits.  Do others think the article is good enough for this process, and if not, what's holding it back? Eubulides 04:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No disagreement, so I'm asking for a peer review now. Eubulides 20:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for a peer review? 

message: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Daylight_saving_time#bcasterline suggests redoing sections in the following order: name & mnemonic first, then origin, then benefits & drawbacks, then when it starts and ends.  Also, perhaps coalescing some subsections of "benefits & drawbacks". There are a few more concrete suggestions in that review, too. Comments? Eubulides 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No other comments, so I have incorporated bcasterline's suggestions. Eubulides 21:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised section order proposal 

message: "DST's clock shifts help remind citizens to replace batteries in smoke detectors and similar devices."
How? Smoke detectors do not have clocks and so don't need to be adjusted. I've never heard of this link before
:I've reworded that section-zero sentence in an attempt to avoid confusion. The topic is discussed more in the "Associated practices" section. If you can suggest better wording in either place, please let us know. Eubulides 05:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  smoke alarms 

message: The U.S.A. is the most powerful country in the world and, along with the U.K., the one who initiated the adoption of Standard Time (ST) that spread worldwide. ST is plainly justified in modern times for purpose of railroads, aviation, communications etc. It does not affect public health in a noticeable way as generally it is quite close to the Local Mean Time (LMT) or solar time of the place, within a 30 minutes margin (minus or plus), to the exception of a few countries (like Spain, France or China) were the legal ST does not coincide at all with LMT (Spain and France belong to the GMT time zone and their current adopted ST is CET (GMT+1); and China observes one single ST (GMT+8) whereas the territory actually spreads throughout five different time zones!).
The problem begins when Daylight Saving/Summer Time (DST) is adopted during the spring to autumn period (March to end of October), supposedly on highly arguable and controversial grounds of energy saving yet to be proven. (DST was firstly lobbied by the British businessman William Willett (1856-1915) in 1907, adopted by the Germans during WWI in 1916 and promptly followed by other countries until now.) Then the discrepancy between solar time and legal time can reach out as much as 3 hours, depending on each particular country and its coordinates. This is preposterous and completely out of reason. The health costs are great, particularly to the most susceptible population: children, old people and workers in general. Things like disruption of sleep patterns, chronic insomnia, increase of stress, increase of tranquilizers, sedatives, alcohol and drugs taking etc., occur in a mass-scale without any way of preventing it. Year after year, governments worldwide impose upon their defenceless populations a legal time and thereby a life schedule that is completely out of tune with the natural way we should be living, that is, according to the solar time.
How to oppose this sorrowful state of things? People around the world (particularly in the USA) should group up, inform and alert the populations about this problem and lobby next to their governments, the UNO, the EU and other powerful organizations for the abolition of DST and the adoption of the correct ST according to the time zone of their country or region (particularly in the case of countries like Spain, France and China).--Orlando F 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk pages are not supposed to be used as platforms for personal views, so are there any objections if we remove this personal-view section from the talk page?  Eubulides 05:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object.  I find the DST page not containing the due criticism.  At least this section on the talk page raises some consciousness.--User:BhishmaL 06:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I object for the same reason. Colonel Warden 06:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Can anyone propose a specific change to the main page to fix the perceived problem? I don't see a specific proposal in Orlando F's comments, which are mostly taken from discussion that is already present on the main page (except for a few unsourced remarks about DST and drug use, which are not appropriate for an encyclopedia without reliable sources). Orlando F has added a strong point of view but we cannot put that into the main page, as it's supposed to have a neutral point of view. So I don't see how these comments can contribute to the main article. Eubulides 08:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. All substantial objections were raised in the article. samwaltz 10:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP THIS DST NONSENSE! 

message: I was wondering why exactly did the Germans and then British etc. decided finally to adopt DST during WW1? I would imagine that military reasons or something would of been the deciding factor, but this article fails to mention why exactly. And if I would like to know why, I'm sure some others may of asked why they did? Kurek 10:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment. I added "DST was promoted as a way to alleviate hardships from wartime coal shortages and air raid blackouts." Eubulides 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for the initial German switch to DST?

message: Recently User:Herenthere added a Template:Globalize/USA tag to the page, without comment. I have responded to this complaint by editing the page to remove several instances of "U.S." but in rereading the page I think Herenthere may be confusing US-centricism with 2007-centricism. It is understandable that an up-to-date encyclopedia would emphasize 2007's issues more than older issues, and since the U.S. and nearby countries changed DST rules in 2007, they have the most-recent (and best-documented) issues. I am adding this discussion item to see what problems others see. If there are problems, I would appreciate specific and doable suggestions. Eubulides 03:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your concern, and I realize that removing "US" from some of the article does help a bit. However, it appeared to me that in the section "Benefits and drawbacks", most of the effects, including energy conservation and traffic fatality data, as well as the numerous mentions of American brandnames such as Clorox, 7 eleven, Kingsford Charcoal, etc. seem to "over-Americanize" DST. I just wanted to remind readers that there is some bias if British or European statistics/companies aren't mentioned and that if they come from those countries, that they could help improve it. Herenthere (Talk) 03:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have added two references about SDST (a British proposal) and have replaced references to the U.S. Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association and the National Association of Convenience Stores with a vaguer reference to the UK sport and leisure industry. That was the best I could do. I'd much rather have a hard reference to a company outside the US being in favor of DST for economic reasons; if you find one please let us know. Eubulides 08:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, Talk:Daylight_saving_time#2007 Change below effectively asked for the SGMA+NACS info back, so I put it back in. At least now we have the UK counterpart. Eubulides 23:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the page too U.S.-centric? If so, what should change? 

message: This article has been promoted to good-article status after the issues in "GA status on hold" were fixed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promoted to GA 

message: * Here's a link to a hearing before the US House on the energy-saving aspects of dst in 2001 -- "ENERGY CONSERVATION POTENTIAL OF EXTENDED AND DOUBLE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME". Maybe we can incorporate this as a reference somewhere. -- phoebe/(talk)  19:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but it's already incorporated; see the Lawson reference (2001-05-24). Eubulides 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DST/Energy savings

message: (Minor) Para 1 : It would be well to mention, at the beginning, BF's nationality and location.
(Minor) Para 2 : It would be well to mention, at the beginning, WW's nationality.
Para 3 : Germany, etc., were NOT the first Europeans to use Summer Time, although they do seem to have been the first in Europe and the first Continentals.
Ernest Shackleton et al, definitely British, started using Advanced Time in the Spring of 1915 (September 26th) - see his book "South".
82.163.24.100 12:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestions; I've fixed all the points you mentioned. Eubulides 18:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin