Miscellaneous desk
< August 8	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

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.

August 9

Most common date for DST to end in the UK (and most of Europe)?

Which date is it? I've done a Google search, but couldn't find it. Checking manually would be error-prone, and I don't know how to write a script to find it for me.--Leon (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Summer Time in Europe. Rojomoke (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK it is always the last Sunday in October - which can fall on any date from the 25th to the 31st. Over a cycle of 28 years, it will fall on each of those dates 4 times. Wymspen (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The UK has not used the Julian calendar since 1752. In the Gregorian calendar the cycle is 400 years, during which the last Sunday in October is most often October 25, 28, or 30 (58 times each, compared to 56 or 57 for other dates). However, that's under the present rules for summer time (DST). Based on history so far, it is highly unrealistic to assume that will stay the same for anything like 400 years, and of course we have no idea of how they will change in the future. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current rules have applied only for the past twenty years. BST ended on October 22nd in 1995. Dbfirs 20:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DST, Double Summer Time, ended in 1947, but British Summer Time (BST, which I assume Star trooper man was asking about) always runs from the last Sunday in March to the last Sunday in October, as explained by Wymspen above. Just look at a calendar to find the date. Dbfirs 17:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confuse things, perhaps the OP is from North America, which would mean that DST means "Daylight Saving Time" which is the one-hour adjustment equivalent to BST in Britain, not the 2 hour adjustment known as DST in Britain. --Jayron 32 18:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, I should have thought of that (but we don't actually save any daylight here in the UK). Dbfirs 18:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona doesn't do daylight savings -- we already have more than we need. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:4176:1674:84F8:476B (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the UK, and I meant BST ending. But, does it really cycle every 28 years? I thought that the calendar cycled every 400 years.--Leon (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See above (now). --69.159.60.147 (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, great! Now for the next bit of my question.

(edit conflict) (with below) Since BST was reinstated in 1971 (after an experiment when British time had been an hour ahead of GMT all year), the most common dates for the ending have been the 26th and 28th (7 each) and the least common (of the current possible dates) the 30th (only 3 years). Dbfirs 20:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I am aware that schools in the UK have holidays at slightly different dates to each other, there is usually overlap between two random English schools. In my experience, the 28th October is always during the Autumn half-term break or a weekend. Is there some "method" to determining school holidays common to all or most English schools, and if so, what is it? To cut to the chase, I'm trying to find the "ultimate" birthday for a UK school student, that being one that is always during a day off school AND most likely to be 25 hours long.--Leon (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether it makes sense to talk about the average ultimate birthday. By which I mean if for example if for example someone born on 28th October 2017 has fewer school holidays or fewer birthdays 25 hours long before they turn 18 than someone born on 27 October 2017 are they really going to be happier that if they were born on the 28th October 2016 or 28th October 2018 they would have the "ultimate" birthday? Probably not.... In fact I would go so far as to suggest this applies to the school thing although that's not possible to definitely predict in advance even though you can often make an educated guess. (Well nor is the DST thing since as mentioned, they can change but still the fact that someone's school can't be precisely predicted is probably more significant.) I mean if someone goes to a school in the England where they never have any holidays on the 28th are they going to say they have the ultimate birthday because nearly everyone else is? Nil Einne (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

School holiday dates in England and Wales are set by each local authority, [1] but generally conform to a three-term system defined by the Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter, together with a long summer break ending at the beginning of September [2] (originally timed to coincide with the harvest which required child labour [3]). Thus the midway point between the start of September and the latter part of December tends to be the last full week of October. Our English school holidays article could use some work. Alansplodge (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shower Niche

Hi, I would like to submit an article for Wikipedia about "Shower Niches"; what they are, variations of, installation etc. In case you are wondering, a shower niche is a recessed area (shelf) in the shower wall where soap, shampoo are stored. My problem is regarding the lack of coverage of this topic from independent sources. When I look up "shower niche" online, there seems to be only one quality independent source that defines "niche" (Merriam-Webster) and it makes no reference of "shower niche". The only other references are from private company's that either sell niche products or build custom made versions. I'm assuming this means that it's considered to be a relatively new term, but it has actually been routinely used in the bathroom remodel industry for more than a decade (in North America, Europe and Australia). Is it possible to write such an article for Wikipedia considering this lack of coverage from independent sources? if so, how would i go about this?

Thank you so much in advance.Gehrminator (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine justification for an entire article on it. Maybe you could add something about it in the Shower article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it might not need a whole article, but I do think a section in shower may be warranted. Notability is tough. We have an article on Opilioacariformes, a type of mite that I may never see in my life, and I bet you won't either. Nor will most people who read this. But I've seen and used a shower niche, and I bet many readers have too. I'd advise OP Gehrminator to read up on our guidelines for WP:RS, WP:5P, WP:YFA, and then go ahead and start working on a section, perhaps discussing on the shower talk page [4] first. SemanticMantis (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has something against articles on common household items. I wrote an article on linen closets and it was deleted. (Here is what it looked like: [5]). StuRat (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's about being against household items, it's sort of a merge/split issue, and what deserves it's own article vs. what is easily handled in a section. In this case, I think you had some good info, but no reason for a whole article, esp. when closet is so small. I added some of your text there [6], and made linen closet redirect to the section instead of the top level article [7], let's see if it sticks! SemanticMantis (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added the pic. I had noticed that the results of the AFD discussion was 6 to keep it and 5 others to either delete or merge, yet somehow delete won (I'm guessing because an Admin decided it should, so ignored the consensus). StuRat (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 2#Linen closet i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linen closet? If so your claims are very confusing. Delete didn't win since the article was not deleted. It's still there. The page was redirected which is a different outcome to delete. If the article had been deleted, it would not be there for you to link to, or SemanticMantis to (I think) use it for adding content to other articles. Inexperienced editors sometimes confuse the difference between redirect or merge and delete but you're not supposed to be an inexperienced editor if you were creating articles in 2005.

Anyway ignoring for a minute consensus isn't about counting votes, which again is something an experienced should know, your 6 keeps include User:Foosher [8], User:64.194.44.220 [9], User:Garr [10], User:TreeFrogz [11] who's block logs suggest they are all socks of User:Science3456. It's also wrong, since even counting the socks, only 5 users !voted keep. The nom User:CarDepot [12] who was evidently also a sock of that other editor, didn't express a clear opinion. So in practice your !vote was the only legitimate one for keep. The closing statement implies the closer at least partially knew this.

3 editors who I assume are legitimate editors since they haven't yet been blocked (one of them is a bit confusing due to renames, but is AED, the other 2 are RJHall and Cdc) supported redirect and merge (it's generally implied that redirect includes merging any useful content but in any case, the editor who didn't explicitly say merge clearly supported the merger of any useful content). One editor supported delete Vegaswikian, which while not the same thing as redirect, is closer to redirect. Which yes, means your 5 doesn't seem to be right either.

So we have a 3 redirect & merge, 1 delete, 1 you keep. So even if that was an actual vote, redirect & merge still wins by any token.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this was properly explained by the closing Admin. Still, there was no attempt to merge, my content was simply deleted and replaced with a redirect. And the difference between deleting the article and making it into a redirect is just semantics. Either way, the content is gone. StuRat (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content is not gone. You're quite allowed to move the text from the redirected article to the target article. No one is going to do work for you here. That's not how Wikipedia works. Bemoaning that someone else hasn't yet done something gets you nothing Just fix it yourself. --Jayron 32 14:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did, now. Back then I didn't know if this was allowed or if I would be blocked. Also, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the person who decides an action should be done to actually do it (or at least don't do a half-assed job, as was done here) ? Otherwise, it's similar to the unfunded mandate problem, in that they could order all sorts of complex things be done, so long as they don't have to do it. StuRat (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The responsibility might be shouldered by the one who's the most interested in or concerned about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]