Talk:Daylight saving time/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

---

Discussion through June 2006

The world map is incorrect

Ecuador, marked as never applied DST, did observed DST in the mid 90's, believed in 95.

First, do you have a citation for this info about Ecuador? It disagrees with today's zoneinfo database. Second, comments about the daylight saving world map probably belong better in the map's talk page. Eubulides 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to find out there, but Sixto Durán Ballén installed DST in `92. It's not clear how long it lasted. "Se recordará el fracaso de la llamada “hora Sixto” implantada en 1992 para supuestamente ahorrar energía eléctrica" [1] "Remember the failure of the so-called 'Sixto time' implemented in 1992 to supposedly save electric energy" rone 22:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I replied on the map's talk page. At this point I assume there's no objection to archiving this discussion item? We can continue the discussion on the other page as needed. Eubulides 06:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Saving Money on Electricity??

In the Arizona section.... "An extra hour of sunlight would cause people to run their cooling systems longer, thereby using more energy." This statement needs elaboration. I don't believe this needs elaboration. I believe it needs to be removed. There is not an extra hour of daylight anywhere no matter what the clock says. People don't adjust their thermostats based on the arbitrary numbers to which the hands on their clocks are pointing. I don't have a survey to back this but I don't know anyone that change their thermostat before and after work.

I don't have a cite, but it seems reasonable that people would use programable thermostats that runs off the time to save energy. I've used a programmable thermostat and I reset the time when DST changes.. —Cliffb 04:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I change the time on my thermostat, but it still is set for the same temperature for the same length of time. I can see a couple sides of the argument. On one side, I may pay a little extra on my home A/C bill if I need to cool a little more while the sun is up. It takes more energy to cool every home for an hour in the evening than to cool every business for an hour in the evening, and energy spent on A/C is a significant percentage of total energy usage.

On the other hand, my office's bill should drop slightly if they can turn off the A/C earlier. The extra home A/C bill only affects those of us with programmable thermostats that have programmed them. Also, if one family member stays home all day, the A/C will be on all day, and you'll get no extra cost at home, but could get savings at the office. Some detailed analysis of how much more energy is used/saved would be nice.

Anyway, I just overhauled the paragraph to make clearer what the A/C rationale was. I removed the whole Arizona thing because there was no cite, and I didn't believe it. Arizona probably had several reasons for not using daylight time, all captured in that criticism section. Derekt75 13:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This thread now seems obsolete, since the text doesn't mention A/C now, and the Kellogg & Ryan paper is a solid cite supporting the argument that DST doesn't necessarily save energy. Eubulides 04:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Another reference has been added (Kandel) and this section of the discussion seems further obsolete. Any objection to removing it? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Map Error - Indiana

The map shows that Indiana never observed DST. That's not true - they just switched.

Fixed Eubulides 09:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Argentina: Mistake

The map shows Argentina as a country that never used DST. That is wrong. It was used for several years, then discontinued, then put again in place. It's not being used now but there are some talks about going back to it.

The problem is fixed now. Eubulides 09:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Map Mistake - Dominican Republic

Dominican Republic has observed DST during the 1970s, and also attempted to observe DST during 2000. DST lasted 1 month in D.R., and was then set back to normal time due to public uproar. -- Zavreio 05:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is fixed now. Eubulides 09:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

POV Alert - Opposition to Daylight Saving Time

The section on opposition is huge in proportion to the section about DST itself. While there are some who disagree with DST, this is a small minority of people; the article has warped into a diatribe against DST, which is to say propound an anti-DST POV. Does anyone else out there agree that it should be balanced correctly? At the very least, the "anti" arguments should come last, as the article is about DST, not about "anti-DST" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsevolod4 (talk • contribs) 09:49, October 19, 2006

I agree that section is poorly written, rambles and possibly a beat up. For example, how significant is the reported spike in road accidents? --Merbabu 01:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the whole Bold textconceptBold text of Daylight Saving Time is poorly conceived. How exactly does one go about "saving" this energy? Are you trying to tell me you only use lights (to say nothing about electricity in general) between sunrise and sunset? I, like most people use lights regardless of the outdoor lighting. Also, how long do the people who come up with the dates for beginning and ending DST think summer lasts? Over here in Cleveland, it gets cold in September, Certainly before the end of October. And that's another point. DST is Bold textcompletely worthlessBold text if the sun rises at 07:00 or later (actually it's worthless all the time, but that's another matter...). With the extension into November, this will happen in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan, and probably elsewhere as well. Brilliant.Upsiditus 03:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, stop complaining. The point is, ladies and gentleman, that: late sunrise, for lack of a better word, is good. Late sunrise is right; late sunrise works. Late sunrise clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Late sunrise, in all of its forms, late sunrise for life, for money, for love, knowledge – has marked the upward surge of mankind, and late sunrise, you mark my words – will save not only energy but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

I don't buy the "spike" in road accidents statement for the following reason: If the argument is that by getting 1 hour less sleep in the spring, drivers are groggy and get in more accidents, then it would follow that if drivers get 1 additional hour of sleep in the fall, then we should see a corresponding drop in auto accidents in the fall. Further, the time change happens on a Sunday, so people have a day to adjust before the vast majority of auto travel happens on Monday. --presto8 2006-10-29

Your argument does not follow unless you also can demonstrate that people get insufficient sleep on a chronic basis, which I'll grant is likely true, and that the likelihood of causing a fatal accident due to lack of sleep follows a linear response, which is somewhat less likely to be true. RandyKaelber 21:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Just speculating, but maybe there are more accidents when DST begins due to the impatient drivers who are one hour late because they forgot to change the clock? Itub 14:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding DST-related spike in road accidents: check this (see 'Results' section). Makes a good argument for a) the presence of a DST-related increase in accidents and b) cause of said accidents being disruption of regular sleep schedules as opposed to forgetful clock-adjusters rushing to appointments. Also, if it were maladjusted clocks that were the problem, I think you'd see a spike lasting only one day but from what I've heard the spike lasts about a week (need to track down citations here). I agree, though, on the POV alert. Presumably there's a benefit, if not real then at least perceived, that's caused most temperate regions to adopt DST. mandersen

A POV vs NPOV decision should be at a much larger level than one half of an argument. If the opposition to Daylight Savings Time was entirely deleted with no replacement, I'd add a NPOV view on the entire article for being biased in favor of Daylight Savings Time. However, I do agree that this section is poorly written in it's current form.

On the time switch and accident rates, there was a study a few years back; and if I recall correctly, it showed an 8% spike on Monday following change to Daylight Savings Time and a corresponding 8% drop on the Monday following change back to Standard Time. This was only US & Canada, and not world wide, and in my opinion says a lot about how sleep deprived many Americans are. (I know many Americans who chronically only get six hours of sleep during the week, and it's very beliveable that cutting that one hour from their time to catch up that weekend would cause an accident spike.) There have been several studies on sleep deprived Americans in general; too little sleep (not sure of exact threshold) is more dangerous than being drunk.

There was a study last year on how long it takes people to recover from going into and out of daylight savings time; If I recall correctly it says how long to fully recover depends upon the person, with most taking two or three days, but some only needing one day and others needing a couple of weeks.

Personally, I find I can't preform well in the morning unless there's been outside light at least half an hour before I wake up; which is more of an argument against still being in Daylight Savings Time in mid October (or later) than going into it in the first place.

Jon 16:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism isn't particularly well-constructed, but I disagree that it is written with bias. It is written with examples illustrating various points of view of the critics. However, it is lengthy and wandering. Cernansky 22:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Vsevolod4 "While there are some who disagree with DST, this is a small minority of people; the article has warped into a diatribe against DST, which is to say propound an anti-DST POV." is quite a POV statement itself. What are your sources for this "small minority of the people"? I have yet to hear a report of any individual anywhere who actually believes that DST is a good idea.

For what it's worth Rationale and original idea refers to two polls showing approval of DST. Eubulides 22:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the criticism section has been rewritten to make it less lengthy and wandering. Eubulides 22:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Western Australia

This line was added to the section about the current DST legislation in the Western Australian parliament: "Many Western Australians against DST have cried out against the trial, as there have been three referendums to date". Does this violate NPOV? I've added another sentence with the other side to the argument to try and balance it. -Jasonb 14:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You obviously support Daylight saving. leave my colck alone dont harras it. Auroranorth

Yes, I do support it. I don't see how my opinion changes anything I had to say though. -Jasonb 11:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted the following from the end of the paragraph about the WA daylight saving trial: "Three previous referenda on daylight savings in Western Australia have all failed. The reasons for these past rejections are geographical and political. The majority of West Australians reside north of latitude 33° south and so the benefits of extended daylight hours are not as great for them as for people in the other southern Australian states. Likewise, most West Australians live near the west coast at around longitude 115° east. The longitude that represents +8 hr GMT (120° east) is located over 400 km to the east in thinly populated desert regions. This means that the majority of West Australians are benefited by close to 20 minutes daylight saving year round." I don't think this is relevant on a page about DST around the world. If anywhere, it should go in the relevant section of Time in Australia. That said, I don't think a discussion of the reasons against (or for, for that matter) is necessary, and if it is deemed to be relevant, the above seems to violate NPOV (that could just be how I read it though). -Jasonb 09:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 05:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

USA (untitled) Table of Time Zones confusing (to me, anyhow)

Apologies if this comment is improper, but I found the table near the middle of the "United States" section to be confusing.
It's clear to me (although unstated) that the table elements are offsets to GMT.
But what are the parenthetical numbers?
If they are hh:mm, why are they all ending in "52"?
Some indication of what these numbers represent would be helpful.
Oybobby 16:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC) oybobby

According to Template:utc, which is called by Template:US time 2006, they are the current local time in 24-hour format for the listed US time zones, which I have added to the template. — Joe Kress 17:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This comment seems obsolete now. The table is no longer present (I assume it's been moved). Eubulides 07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one that noticed?

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)

Criticism

the criticism regarding morning time being switched for evening time makes little sense to me. During summer/spring in England it is light well before 6 am, so actually it makes no difference to such early-risers that morning light is switched for evening. Even with DST it is light well before normal rising hours. The sun has already started rising at almost 4:30 am in the height of summer

A comment has been added to this effect. It says, "An energy argument for observing DST in summer rather than winter is that most people wake up after the summer sun rises regardless of whether DST is in effect, so DST during summer has less need for morning electrical lighting." Eubulides 09:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hateful Polemic

The following was deleted for being "irrelevant, polemic meant to instigate hatred":

In territories controlled by the Palestinian National Authority, DST ends later, which can lead to some confusion. On September 5, 1999, terrorists were transporting a bomb that they mistakenly thought was set to go off at 5:30 PM Israel Standard Time; it was actually set for 5:30 PM Palestinian Daylight Time, which was an hour ahead. As a result, the bomb went off while the bomb was still being transported, killing the terrorists (and earning them a Darwin Award).

Please discuss before deleting this again. It well illustrates the some of the problems critics have with DST.

If necessary, I can edit it to make it less Hate-instigating. A few examples:

1. In territories controlled by the loving Palestinian National Peace-out, DST ends later, which can lead to some confusion. On September 5, 1999, peace activists were lovingly transporting a bomb that they mistakenly thought was set to go off at 5:30 PM Israel Standard Time; it was actually set for 5:30 PM Palestinian Daylight Time, which was an hour ahead. As a result, the bomb went off while the bomb was still being transported, killing the kind, loving activists, and depriving them of the opportunity to show their love to the hateful Israelis. It also earned them a posthumous Noble Pieces Prize.
2. In territories controlled by the Palestinian Floral Authority, DST ends later, which can lead to some confusion. On September 5, 1999, Palestinian peace workers were lovingly transporting a bouquet that they mistakenly thought was set to go off at 5:30 PM Israel Standard Time; it was actually set for 5:30 PM Palestinian Daylight Time, which was an hour ahead. As a result, the bouquet went off while the bouquet was still being transported, covering the kind, loving peace workers with pollen (and earning them a Allergen Award).
3. In territories controlled by the Hebrew National Authority, DST ends earlier, which can lead to some confusion. On September 5, 1999, Hebrew terrorists were transporting a bomb to Palestine that they mistakenly thought was set to go off at 5:30 PM Palestinian Daylight Time; it was actually set for 5:30 PM Israel Standard Time, which was an hour behind. As a result, the bomb went off an hour later, killing more people than they had anticipated (and earning them a Kosher Award).

--BillCJ 06:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This item is no longer relevant to the page, as round-the-world stuff has been split off. Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no documentation of energy or commercial impact

Something very weird is going on not just in this article but in science / the web in general --- how can it be that so many countrys have DST, and yet there seems to be no scientific results or studies on what the economic impact is? First, every year we should get statistics about how it impacts energy usage at the time of change-over, and second, some countries and states start and stop using it, so we should by now have some idea of whether there is commercial impact from year to year. But everything I found that claims to document this also claims that a later report overturned it, and they all seemed to be government documents anyway, not something in the scientific literature.

If I were Hilary Clinton I'd wonder if there was a vast energy-producers conspiracy to whallop any results showing how useful DST is. I mean, if that's not the story, then why is its acceptance so widespread? Who does benefit from having the time fluctuate if there's no measurable benefit to the population?

The one possible explanation I found in about 40 minutes of research was that about 66% of people like daylight savings time. So maybe it's just democracy / quality of life, we like seeing as much daylight as possible. However, again, I didn't find that in an original source so I haven't referenced it here.--Jaibe 10:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

66% of people might 'like' DST, but how many dislike standard time? Probably it depends where in the time zone you are (western edge vs eastern edge) whether you would find ST/DST sunrise too late/early, ST/DST sunset too early/late. Myself, I would rather be on DST hours year-round. Summer with DST gives Calgary,AB,Canada a daylight range of 5:30am-10:00pm, whereas winter with ST gives us daylight range of 8:30am-4:30pm. Since it's basically still dark/darkish when most people are starting out their winter days (between 8 and 9, on average), what's the point of making it dark while you're still at work at 4:30? If it was light 9:30-5:30, then we could have truly dark on the way in, and still-some-light on the way home. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of some sample latitudes, east-west positions relative to time zone boundaries, and a few typical schedules (FT work, shift work, night shift, schools, farms) to see who time-change affects how. Mandersen

Those are really interesting questions, but you could equally drop DST and use different business hours, right? (I abhor dark on the way home, so I'm with you, but I think a lot of people like light in the morning; helps folks wake up.) 216.145.54.7 04:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to get reliable science in this area, but the page now references Kellogg & Wolff, and also Kamstra et al., so it should be better than it was before. Eubulides 09:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

DST in India

As far as I know DST was in practice in India briefly during the World War II and during China and Pakistan wars as well.

The map now reflects this. Eubulides 00:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this article need {split-apart}

I clicked "edit the page" and saw that the article is 56 KB long. That is probably due to the long list of countries there. So I was wondering if it needs a tab like this one? Does it sound alright? --Gh87 04:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is now about 30 kB so I guess the split has fixed things. Eubulides 00:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the history portion for the us is not complete

See the article at http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/e.html for information about the April date change in the mid-80's and the 15-month exercise in the 70's so that the statement about since 1966 it's been these dates isn't correct.

This stuff has now been moved to a different article, so the comment is obsolete. Eubulides 00:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

DST in Brazil

I noticed that the article is saying that, in Brazil, DST is called Hora do Verão. That's not true, and should be corrected. In Brazil, DST is called horário de verão (Summer Time).

This stuff has been moved to a different page, I guess, so the comment is no longer relevant. Eubulides 00:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Map mistake: Libya

The map shows Libya as never having observed DST, but in fact, it did, from 1981 to 1990, and then again from 1996 to 1997 (don't ask, it is an odd country). Who owns the map? Can they fix it?

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/timezone.html?n=252&syear=1980

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/timezone.html?n=252&syear=1990

It's fixed now. Eubulides 09:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Splitting Location Section

I have suggested splitting the section containing the practice of daylight saving time around the world into its article. The section is taking up far too much space in this article, and I feel the article should really just concentrate on the idea of daylight-saving time itself. -- tariqabjotu 21:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agree: I support this for the reasons given above. Care will have to be taken, as there are references to this section throughout the article. In addition, shortened versions of some paragraphs might be retained as examples within the article. -- BillCJ 22:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: I will proceed with splitting the article in Dec., if no objections have been put forth be that time. It's just WAY too long. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed that the current section takes up way too much space. I'm wondering if it's worth having one article for everywhere in the world though, when there are also separate pages about time/DST in various countries. At the moment there's a lot of repeated/redundant information in this section, which is also in article called "Time in _____" (and sometimes inconsistent). Maybe we should just have a list of these articles that we link to? I'd be happy with either solution though. -Jasonb 16:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a option too. However, not all countries regions have articles, so I think there still should be one location with information on all the countries. Correlating this information with the existing pages should be done, but it would be quite extensive. Perhaps the country pages could be combined by continent/regionwith links to the region pages here, but again that's quite a job. For now, I think the simplest thing to do would be to split off this article now, while discussing a future solution too. - BillCJ 17:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, okay, I'm happy with that. -Jasonb 17:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone created the article anyway, apparently by just cut-and-pasting the whole section in, with no attempt at formatting it for its own article. When we do get a consensus here (or at least no opposition) by the end of the week, I'll make a fresh copy with all the recent edits, and format it properly. - BillCJ 15:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Split completed. I kept the history portion from the US here, as it is long. Will check later to see if there is an article on DST in the US, and merge it there. - BillCJ 06:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Who suggested it be merged with Harassment?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the two as highly related, so maybe we could nix that idea? I just don't know how to delete it personally.

Onceuponastar 12:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently,it was not a serious suggestion, but rather some form of vandalism. Also, the 4 notices he posted were removed from the article over 24 hours ago. Is it posted somewhere else? - BillCJ 14:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Style: the word "experience"

"would have experienced the latest sunrises of the year during the month of November," I find that the verb "to experience" is misused a lot, bad style, and often literally incorrect. In the quoted case, there *is* a late sunrise, whether there is anyone present and awake to "experience" it or not.

Remember to sign your posts! Actually, it says "the entire United States . . . would have experienced". One can argue about whether land or a country can "experience" something, but this is really a minor quibble in my opinion. That being said, Wikipedia is all about improvement. If you can reword it into something better, then by all means do so. But if a rewrite will make it too wordy or unclear, then it's probably best to leave it alone. - BillCJ 16:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's fixed now. Eubulides 09:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

History: UK - Sandringham Palace

I'm sure I heard on University Challenge or Mastermind recently that an early experiment into daylight saving time was carried out by an English king who set all of the clocks at Sandringham Palace half an hour later than those elsewhere, Sandringham being where he stayed in the summer. I have not found reference to this elsewhere yet, though. 195.11.55.198 16:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

See Sandringham Time. — Joe Kress 00:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What about WHEN it occurs?

I'm sorry, but one thing the article is grossly negligent in omitting is WHEN Daylight Saving Time actually occurs in various regions. That is why I came here. The history and all of that is good information and fitting of Wikipedia, but let us not forget the simple things. When DST occurs should come right after the general definition, before the history, computer stuff, et cetera. 4.88.49.159 14:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Try section 2 under the Table of Contents (Daylight saving time#Observation of DST), where the basic details are given. It comes right after a single paragraph on origins, where it has been since 05:48, August 5, 2005. So I'm not sure what the problem is here. All the varying times and dates for the various countries were previously listed by continent and country under what is now the Daylight saving time around the world article. - BillCJ 17:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Canada 2007

From http://www.timetemperature.com/tzca/daylight_saving_time_canada.shtml

NEW! In 2007 Daylight Saving Time will begin three weeks earlier on the second Sunday in March and end on the first Sunday in November. Currently Daylight Saving Time starts on the first Sunday in April and ends on the last Sunday in October. This pattern will be followed by all provinces which observe daylight saving time and each province is amending their legislation to reflect this change.

This change in Daylight Saving Time will keep Canada's Daylight Saving Time pattern consistent with the United States which enacted into law a broad energy bill that will extend Daylight Saving Time in the same manner.

jlam 13:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This comment now seems more appropriate for Daylight_saving_time_around_the_world. Eubulides 07:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

opposite effect

Removed

Since DST exchanges morning daylight for evening daylight, late sunrises occur when DST is in effect during the parts of the year when days are shorter, and darkness in the morning can be undesirable for early risers like many schoolchildren and workers.

This is wrong.

DST favours sunlight earlier in the morning during winter months when days are shorter and it also gets darker sooner (as the sun set is ultimately earlier as well). Dainamo 19:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest in editing (Israeli DST)

I have just made an edit (as anonymous by mistake, sorry) of the article. It listed Israel as a thorny example of somewhere that didn't have fixed DST rules, therefor causing trouble for computer systems. I moved that into the "Windows" section, and elaborated somewhat (as that's the only platform truly affected by non-fixed DST start/end dates on one hand, and as Israel is an excellent, if extreme, example why such a policy is problematic). The problem is that the only outside source I could find explaining the issue was... my own company's web site, lingnu.com[2]. The page is considered fairly authoritative (i.e. it is well linked to), but as I wrote it, one may claim I'm ill positioned to use it as a source. I would have provided the upstream sources, except:

1. None of them list the information as concisely as that one, and
2. The page was written in 2005. I no longer remember where the sources were

I believe the result is within reason, but I wanted to float the issue so that no one blames me for plugging my company (inappropriately). Shachar 06:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Origin

Page says : "The idea of DST was first put into practice by the German government ...".

That is not so.

The German government was the first national government to introduce Summer Time.

Previously, it was put into practice by Shackleton in Spring 1915 - September 26th, if I remember correctly.

Various Canadian municipalities seem to have implemented Summer Time in about 1907-16.

82.163.24.100 11:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The wording is fixed now. Eubulides 09:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Any objection to removing this obsolete discussion item? Eubulides 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Railroads, U.S.A.

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).

The page now says "Disruption to … travel … is not uncommon when clocks or rules change." Eubulides 08:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well what do they do when the clock goes the other way? I am not arguing that what you say you experienced happened. I just find it odd that they would physically stop the trains rather than making simple adjustments to the schedule. 66.18.202.164 16:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Windows

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)

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)

Link to advertisement should be removed

The "External links" section in the current version of this page contains a pointer to an advertisement for a DST update tool solving a particular problem with Microsoft Windows and daylight saving time. This seems out of place for a Wikipedia web page. The Wikipedia guideline on external links says "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." I have removed the external link three times in the past six days but the promoter of that product keeps reinserting the link. I have attempted to contact him via his talk page but have gotten no response other than temporary vandalization of my user page. Eubulides 02:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have warned the user on his talk page about spam links and vandalizing userpages. I will keep this page watchlisted. -- Pastordavid 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

2007-03-05 NYT story cites mysterious ACEEE, 2006 Energy Dept. studies

Steve Lohr (2007-03-05). "Time change a 'mini-Y2K' in tech terms". New York Times. 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)