Talk:Daylight saving time/Archive 4

message: The article states: "... Partial workarounds include manually switching zone files every year and a Microsoft tool that switches zones automatically."
Why are either of those considered a "partial" workaround?  What is the limitation?  This should be addressed, or perhaps this reference eliminated.  --65.31.142.95 10:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Eubulides 20:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Microsoft 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)
replies: text: I did find the ACEEE's estimate of savings from the energy efficiency provisions in the final bill but its numbers are labeled poorly and do not match the numbers in Lohr's article. It seems to be estimating a year-2020 saving of $329 million and 0.8 million metric tons of carbon. Anyway, the ACEEE estimate is still fairly mysterious. Eubulides 06:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Carl Bialik reports that the ACEEE numbers are based on 1970s data and are uncertain, so I guess we can ignore them. Here's the citation:  Eubulides 06:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mysterious ACEEE, 2006 Energy Dept. studies

message: Is there any reference to climate differences as reasons whether to use/not use DST? For instance, in hot and humid climates, the electricity saving might be offset by higher use of air conditioners; and heat and humidity have an effect on traffic as well - so perhaps moving the rush-hours nearer to midday is not such a great idea there? 88.153.196.201 08:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of any high-quality studies of that issue, no. Eubulides 09:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Climate differences?

message: The repeated use of the abbreviation DST really grates.  Such repetition is poor writing syle and it's made worse when the repetition is an Americanism which still seems odd to my eye.  The article should have some elegant variation so that it doesn't keep hammering away with the same abbreviation. Colonel Warden 20:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, I think you're making much ado about nothing. --Belg4mit 03:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed 22 instances of "DST". If you think of an elegant variation that could remove more of them nicely, please let us know. (I couldn't think of one.) Eubulides 07:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many DSTs 

message: Acutally, the recently removed daylight chart software seemse perfectly reasonable, and might even be used to produce a better chart than that I submitted. (Although it seems to use some goofy font.) --Belg4mit 03:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it can produce a better chart, that'd be great. We can add a reference to it in the chart's caption or description. However, for the main page I'd rather stick with a small "External links" section with core, high-value links; this link seems comparatively peripheral to the main subject. Eubulides 07:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I just looked at the sample chart and it does look nice, except for the font. It's upside down from the usual presentation, but I prefer it that way. Eubulides 07:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the image. It looks good and addresses all my comments. Eubulides 10:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daylight Chart 

message: The last section of the introduction and the 'Associated practices' paragraph claims the time shifts are used as a reminder of fire safety practices. Is this a world wide (as far as DST is used) practice? Or just used in the US? I've never heard of it. (Does 'be bold with editing' mean I should just edit this right away?)
Calamarain 11:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not world wide (as some areas don't have good fire-safety practices) but neither is it limited to the US. I added text saying it occurs in many countries, and added a reference to a New Zealand fire safety press release. It's also in at least Australia and the UK and I expect many other countries that have both DST and good fire-safety practices. Eubulides 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right. I'd never heard of it before, but googling revealed some examples from outside English speaking countries (NL, FR) as well. Calamarain 07:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Associated practices are regional? 

message: Any objection to changing the section header "Energy conservation" to "Energy use"? That would be shorter and more neutral, since there's some dispute as to whether DST conserves energy. Eubulides 19:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection, so I renamed it. Eubulides 19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Energy conservation" → "Energy use" as section header? 

message: As well as the map, a percentage of the worlds population that use it and don't use it would be helpful, to better illustrate the statement "the majority of the worlds population don't use it" in conjunction with the map. Does anyone have such info? We can work it out if we really have to. SGGH speak! 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can certainly be worked out, but I don't think this information is nearly as informative as you assert. --Belg4mit 02:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus the exact percentage would veer towards original research, and so would run afoul of WP:OR. Eubulides 05:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage

message: Congrats. Too bad the timing wasn't better i.e; nearer either one of the time-changes. --Belg4mit 02:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone added that today, and someone else removed it soon after, thank goodness. Eubulides 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured 

message: Why is there an apparent assumption that politicians should do anything other than represent the people who vote for them?
The last sentence in the Politics section 
"...and several politicians changed positions to gain tactical advantage after public sentiment swung against it" 
should surely read 
"...and several politicians changed positions to reflect their constituents' views after public sentiment swung against it".
:Thanks for the comment. If you follow the cited reference you'll see that both tactics and public sentiment had roles. But you're right that the phrase "to gain tactical advantage" was unnecessary. It didn't add anything to the Wikipedia article so I removed it. Eubulides 07:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politicians and "tactical advantage" 

message: For those who find it useful: "Spring forward, fall back."
:Sadly, "Spring forward, Autumn back" doesn't work quite as well. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mnemonic]]

message: Can someone improve the sentence that begins "While an envoy to France"? That phrase is too short, and it is confusing to read. I would change it myself, but thought I'd defer to one of the major editors. Jlaramee 16:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is confusing about it? The word "envoy"? I used "envoy" because he wasn't actually an ambassador, he was a commissioner, but explaining "commissioner" would take up far too much space. Or is it the word "While" that is a problem? Would you prefer "While he was an envoy to France"? Eubulides 17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusion comes from the ambiguity of the word "while" (more than from the shortness--sorry). Example: "While I was in Italy, I drank a lot of red wine." as opposed to "While I was in agreement with most of his points, I thought his approach was misguided." In this case, you eventually figure out which meaning is intended, but having to think about it a little bit slows you down (or it slowed me down, anyway). Something like "During his time as an envoy" is not necessarily the most elegant way to express it, but it gets directly to the meaning (i.e. time-descriptive) of the adverbial phrase. I may be making too much out of this. Jlaramee 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining. Clarity first, elegance later, so I changed the wording to "During his time as an envoy" for now until we can think of something more elegant. Eubulides 23:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benjamin Franklin 

message: How has this bad article made it onto the main page? This article gives a poor global view of the subject and, like the majority of Wikipedia articles, is first and foremost US-biased, closely followed by being UK-biased. Most examples are from the US/UK and the whole thing gives a US/UK perspective. The "rest of the world" is by and large wrapped up in a single section. Such articles should never be permitted on the main page. 86.27.67.86 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar comments came up in the review process, and were answered as follows. DST was invented by an Englishman and much of the initial controversy about it was originally in Britain and the U.S.; controversies elsewhere tend to rehash the same topics and are less well documented. By far the best reliable documentation for DST's effects are U.S. and UK sources. The great majority of people who observe DST are in the northern hemisphere, so it is reasonable that most of the examples are in the northern hemisphere. All that being said, if you see a specific instance of biased coverage in the page, please let us know. Eubulides 17:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a featured article - don't make me laugh! 

message: The variable-length hours that predated the use of mechanical clocks are an irrelevance.  Their purpose was completely different.  That material is not appropriate in the introduction or under Origins, and may cause confusion.
So remove "; some ancient cultures lengthened each summer daylight hour instead".
The portion in Origins (first paragraph) could be retained with a heading or sub-heading of its own, though I see no need for it in this Article.
82.163.24.100 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why unequal hours are irrelevant. Ancient and modern schemes both adjust daily schedules to the sun. It's true they do so in different ways, but there is something in common. See the article's citation to Berthold Ullman's paper "Daylight saving in ancient Rome". Ullman thought unequal hours were relevant, at any rate; do you have a reliable source that disagrees? As for confusion, it could well be that the current wording is confusing. I agree that unequal hours were a different scheme but thought that the article explained this adequately. It would help if you could explain the confusion you see, so that the wording can be improved. Eubulides 23:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Time 

message: Europe does not use DST; that is an Americanism.  The term "Summer Time" should be used wherever the reference is to or in Europe (those other European countries for which I recollect the terms employ equivalent terms).
It could be of interest to list, in Terminology,  the terms used in the major languages of substantial areas that use seasonal clock changes; include, say, UK, FR, NL, DE, IT, ES, PT, RU, JP, AU/NZ, BR, MX maybe.
The first British use of Summer Time is not mentioned, alas.
82.163.24.100 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article uses American double-quotes and American spelling throughout, so it's consistent for it to use American terminology as well (while also mentioning the British and Australian alternatives of course). It would be somewhat confusing for the article to switch terminology depending on whether the example is American or European, just as it would be confusing for an article on pediatrics to call a doctor a "pediatrician" or a "paediatrician" depending on whether the doctor happened to live in America or Europe. Daylight saving time#Terminology currently covers only English-language terms, which is appropriate for an English-language article; people who want to know terminology for other languages can consult the wikilinked-to pages in alternative languages. Daylight saving time#Politics says "the United Kingdom first used DST on 1916-05-21". Eubulides 23:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: I'd like to see someone include some discussion of the costs to the transportation industry of the 'change of time's. Back when I worked for a living, we all hated the switch, especially the fall change. Ever truck/train/plane that arrived at 01:30 DST missed its connection that left at 01:45 ST by 45 minutes. This often meant re-scheduling the whole country for one day.
Tommurphy.us 22:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current article does mention "disruptions to travel". A more-extended discussion would be nice, but would need a reliable source about the actual costs to the transportation industry. If you know of one please let us know. Eubulides 23:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costs of DST 

message: This article previously had a section of valid criticisms, which is now entirely missing, and the few criticisms remaining in the article are treated in an offhand manner. I have never heard of any real person holding such a favorable view of daylight saving time as it is described here. Please bring this article back to a neutral point of view.
:That's a bit vague; can you be more specific? All the main arguments for and against DST are supposed to be in the current article. If one is missing, please let us know. Eubulides 03:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just now read that old section and couldn't find any sourced criticism that is absent from the current version. For example, its first point (disruption of sleep) is currently covered in Daylight saving time#Health. I did see a lot of repetition on that old version, though, so I may have missed something as my eyes glazed over. Could you please be more specific about what criticisms are currently being missed? Eubulides 07:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: This change caused the article to claim that the Jewish calendar has always operated on a system whereby days are divided into 12 equal hours regardless of day length. But that claim is not correct. See, for example:  Rather than delve into the complexities of ancient Jewish timekeeping, which is a bit off the topic, I thought it better to fall back on a general comment about religious timekeeping and use Mount Athos as an example, since some of the monks there still keep Roman time for daily activities. So I fixed things as follows. Eubulides 16:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish timekeeping 

message: Surely those go UP when there's more light, as nobody can see.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Car Accidents 

message: I came to this article not looking for background on why we have DST, etc, but instead trying to figure out when the next time change will be, which does not seem to be in the article at all, or if it is, it's buried.  JNW2 05:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the U.S., most areas will revert to Standard Time at 0200 on Sunday, Nov. 4, 2007, and are scheduled to set clocks ahead to DST again on Sunday, March 9, 2008.  Worldwide, the answer is more complex. I don't see explicit mention of the transition dates in the article either, but the link Year 2007 problem leads to mention of the current rules in terms of when and where they apply. Hertz1888 06:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's in the article; Daylight saving time #Observance practices says "Starting in 2007, most of the United States and Canada observe DST from the second Sunday in March to the first Sunday in November." The article is intended to be encyclopedic, so it'd be a bit out of place to have "Warning: Clocks change on November 4!" at the start of the article. Eubulides 08:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Encylopedic or not, I couldnt find that information untill you pointed it out. I'd make the argument that, as it is the actual practical knowledge about daylight savings time, it does merit a bit more promenence in the article. 192.189.123.1 16:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual dates of time changes

message: This change introduced several changes to Daylight saving time #Origin, but I'm afraid it has some problems.
* The change causes the article to spend too much time on unimportant details of the origin of daylight saving time. For example, from DST's point of view, it isn't that important that William Willett lived in Chislehurst or that Chislehurst is in Kent, nor is it important that he died of influenza, nor is it important to give yet another quote from Churchill about DST (the article already has one, and that's enough).
* It causes the story of Willett and DST to be repeated, once with the existing text, and once with the new text. Likewise for the story of Britain, Germany, and DST. Likewise for Churchill.
* It introduced uncited quotes; in Wikipedia all direct quotes must be cited.
For now I'm planning to revert the changes; comments welcome. It would be OK, I think, to add some of the details in this change, (though the above problems need to be addressed) so long as "Origin" doesn't become too long. Or, if there's interest in a lot of detail here, perhaps we should start a new page History of daylight saving time that has the extra detail. Eubulides 15:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No further discussion, so I undid most (but not all) of the changes here. Eubulides 19:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Origin" is too long and is unsourced 

message: The "advocated it tirelessly" in the caption for William Willett's photo is conjecture and not fact.  Propose rewording to specify verified date range or removal until verified.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.236.200.99 (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a citation to a reliable source (Prerau, page 22) that says "Willett marshaled the movement's backers and tirelessly worked to win new adherents, while continuing to spend large amounts of his personal fortune for the cause. He sent out hundreds of letters each year to influential people in all walks of life, and published several new editions of The Waste of Daylight, each naming more people who endorsed the proposal." You can't get much more tireless than that. Eubulides 19:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  .. invented DST and ''advocated it tirelessly''. 

message: Under politics it states "The U.S. was more typical: Congress repealed DST after 1919. President Woodrow Wilson, like Willett an avid golfer, vetoed the repeal twice but his second veto was overridden,[61] and only a few U.S. cities retained DST locally thereafter.[62]"  But in my lifespan we've always done DST. When did we get it back? Shouldn't that also be in the article? Kuronue | Talk 22:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; I made this change. Thanks. Eubulides 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States 

message: I have now had the opportunity to analyse the article in a bit more detail. Herewith a few reasons why I believe the article does not meet wikipedia NPOV requirement:
# The article contains 64 statements that are negative about DST as opposed to 24 positive statements. This does not represent 64 against 24 arguments but rather tries to influence the reader through repetition.
:Well, what do you expect?  DST has very few positive qualities.  It's only logical that in a serious debate, it won't hold up to scrutiny.76.205.104.252 (talk)
#* Details, please. Exactly how are you counting? Eubulides (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV bias

message: The Daylight saving time #References to popular culture section should be removed. Until  2007-03-19 the article had a section called "Cultural references", but Wikipedia:Peer review/Daylight saving time #bcasterline suggested that it should be removed as per WP:TRIV. references The older version had a far-superior "Cultural references" section, which I've copied for everybody's amusement below, but this material isn't suited for this encyclopedia article either. Eubulides 15:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to popular culture 

message: For official/medical/technical notation of time during the November time switch, how is the first 1:00-2:00 period differentiated from the second?
--69.118.139.30 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of any international standard. I have heard that in Germany they use "A" and "B" after the times, but I don't know whether that's a standard or just a local custom. I think the usual practice in the U.S., when people care, is to use abbreviations like "EST" or "EDT" after the time, or perhaps UTC offsets like "-0500" or "-0400". Or, you can just specify the time in UTC (see the end of this paragraph). I don't know about other English-speaking countries. Eubulides 23:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official notation? 

message: Made a small change in the terminology section to include common usage of daylight time.  PDST may be a formal acronym(unsure of that), but PDT is commonly used and commonly spelled out as Pacific Daylight Time.  This crosses all of the timezones as far as i know. Bhcompy 00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I checked, and the "PDST" claim was added by User:12.32.89.121 here, with a comment saying it's the "more proper nomenclature" but without a reliable source. Google reports that almost nobody uses "PDST" in practice, and I couldn't find any support for the claim that "PDST" is formally correct. So for now I removed mention of PDST. Eubulides 00:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also fits with the format used in the Pacific Time Zone wiki page as well to match the example.  Bhcompy 00:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Terminology 

message: According to the introduction, [DST clockshifts] serve as twice-yearly fire safety reminders..  I've never heard about this before, and the sentence confused me a bit (I had to check up the reference).  I don't think this is an essential feature nor advantage of DST per se, and I think it's well enough covered in the Public safety-section, so I will remove it from the introduction. tobixen 08:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt it can use better wording. But I don't understand the point of the rest of the comment; I'm afraid it sounds a bit like "I didn't know about that, so it must not be important". The lead is supposed to summarize the body, and if the body covers the topic significantly, then the lead should mention it too; this is true even if the body covers the topic "well enough". It is true that one can have DST without having fire safety reminders, but that is true for a good chunk of the lead already: why is fire safety less important than the other topics? Sports are not "essential" to DST, for example, but the lead mentions sports. Isn't fire safety at least as important as sports? Eubulides 09:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The list of countries doing campaigns like this include the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, France, and the Netherlands; see Talk:Daylight saving time#Associated practices are regional?. The list also includes Canada, of course; see, for example this news item by the Canadian Technical Standards and Safety Authority and this one from the Montreal fire department and Quebec Public Security. Google News currently reports 219 news articles matching the query "daylight saving batteries smoke" so the topic certainly does get reported often in the mainstream press. Finally, I don't understand the argument about fire safety not being "dependent" on the DST. Strictly speaking, nothing is "dependent" on the DST, as obviously many countries get along fine without DST. But fire safety is a topic that is very frequently associated with DST, so it's a relevant subject for this article and its lead. I don't see what being "dependent" has to do with it. Eubulides 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No further comment, so for now I put the fire-safety point back in the lead, reworded to make it shorter and (I hope) clearer. It's now down to 8 words in the lead, which I hope is brief enough: "… can serve as fire safety reminders, but they …". For more discussion of this issue please see Talk:Daylight saving time #Clock shifts as reminders above. Eubulides 18:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire safety reminders 

message: is there an initiative to amend the page and graphics with the change of DST policy for ARgentina?
192.85.47.12 (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Eubulides (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DST in Argentina