Miscellaneous desk
< October 31	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 2 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 1

daylight savings time

Now that we are going off of daylight saving time why should we ever go back on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.28.252 (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I presume from the timing of this question that you're in North America - for those of us in Europe the clocks went back last weekend. The Daylight saving time article gives the rationale behind it, mainly longer light availability in the summer evenings, though in midsummer here (Central England) it's usually light from before 4 a.m. to around 10.30 p.m. so it doesn't make much difference here. It has been nice this last week that sunrise is before 7 a.m. rather than 8 a.m. for a while, though that won't last long. Here the long-running debate about moving us one timezone further east permanently has reignited. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed the OP was from North America, from the construction 'going off of'. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is also apparently unfamiliar with Arizona, Hawaii, and (particularly) Indiana, as well - see Daylight saving time in the United States and Time in Indiana. Tevildo (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russia had been on year-round DST since 2011, until last week when Putin abolished it and created 2 new time zones, making 11 now. That's all he did, but it sounds so much more sinister and redolent of the Cold War era to say he's put the country on "permanent winter time". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight Savings Time or Not? Given this is a pure request for opinion, I am surprised we don't yet have 21,026 bytes over three pages complaining about it. I won't hat the thread, but someone should. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So glad you won't hat the the thread but why the sudden change of heart?
Anyway: As sunrise and sun set times tend to affect those most in the far north and far south. One wonders why DST is not demarcated in according to latitude. Yes, this might create some problems but would they be any any worse that driving down a US freeway late at night when it weaves in and out of Mountain Time and Central Time thus ensuring your limos WiFi crashes one's calendar as one tries to update ones itinerary. Of cause not, most normal people are in bed at that time. Software can be bespoken (unlike liveware), so that as one drives north, south, east or west, your inboard systems re-synchronizes. Bit like jumping on a plane a adjusting ones watch to the destination time. But it can all done for you automatically. Here is Benjamin Franklin's Essay on Daylight Saving. Letter to the Editor of the Journal of Paris, 1784 [1]--Aspro (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No change of heart on my part, see, for example, User:SlightTorrent whose entire edit history I deleted, and whom I reported to SPI and had indeffed. The change of heart here is from the users who recently asked for an admin to be stripped of his duties, and another who answers this blatant request for opinion without a blink after writing at least 21,026 hysterical bytes over three pages and five threads complaining about Homer. Bugs' comment seems reasonable, I just laugh anymore. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So whether Medeis hats or not, the hassle remains the same. But consider this: Is a truly factual response possible to a question like, "...why should we ever go back on it?"? The tone suggests a debate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The only safe place for such a discussion is someone's user talk page or other user space. One could start an article, Daylight saving time controversy, and it might even be accepted with sufficient sourcing. On the other hand, there already exists a section along those lines in the main article. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm suggesting and adding is that their is a third option, that the OP might like to consider.--Aspro (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with a request for opinion. Even cold hard facts are based on someone's opinion of reality. The important thing is references. Here's one framing itself like a pseudodebate. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with a request for opinion. - True, except for the notice at the top of this page: We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but this way, we're not answering. The source is. We're just pointing the way. I think the author meant we shouldn't give our own opinions. Or our own facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the same publication, stating things as questions two years earlier. Should they be more assertive? Is why it ends more important than why it begins? Did 2007 solve anything? 2010 seems pretty sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]