Talk:China standard time

{{WikiProject Time|class=redirect|importance=NA

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 17:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dilemma of a uniform time zone

When the US was in the same time zone (when by the way?), was Califonia part of the US already? — Insta ntnood 21:32, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Time zones were implemented in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Before then, every location kept its own time. -- ran (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ROC Time

This article taken from a government document says the Republic of China has five time zones for its claimed territories, that is +5.5, +6, +7 + 8 and +8.5. — Insta ntnood 01:21, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose we should start an article on Chungyuan Standard Time, or Time zones of the Republic of China. -- ran (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reason of being spurious

Can someone explain (in the article) why the critics who say advancing the time zone by 1 hour would "instead symbolize a reversion to Japanese colonialism" are criticized as being "spurious"? Thanks.—Gniw (Wing) 07:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not "spurious". Even though Taiwan was on +8 during the Japanese occupation, that doesn't mean advancing Taiwan up to +9 (same as Japan) can't be interpreted as having some symbolic meaning in that direction, especially if advancing Taiwan out of +8 is interpreted as having symbolic meaning anyways. -- ran (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merging this article to "Time zones of China"

I suggest merging this article to Time zones of China. - Alanmak 01:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. go ahead.--Jiang 08:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about the time zone articles for Taiwan, HK etc?--Huaiwei 08:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

" The "China" in the title of the article "Time zones of China" technically refers to the Greater China region, which includes mainland China. Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. The time zone articles for Hong Kong, Macao should definitely be merged to that article. I am fine with moving the information about the time zone of Taiwan to that article too. But some pan-green extremists on Taiwan would feel very offended when people associate "Taiwan" with "China." - Alanmak 03:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summary style should be adopted for the specific time standards in that article, each with its own main article. — Insta ntnood 10:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask. Why?--Huaiwei 13:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a separate article for each time standard. Would you consider to merge all articles on time standards of southeast Asian countries into time zones of Southeast Asia? — Insta ntnood 14:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be a separate article for each "time standard", whatever the later is? If you wan to create time zones of Southeast Asia, no one is going to stop you. But you have two issues to resolve: This article shares a common time zone, while Southeast Asia does not. So on what basis do you want to create that article? Second, while "Chinese Standard Time" shows up results on a google search, "time zones of Southeast Asia" gives zero results. Care to comment?--Huaiwei 14:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check how many results are there for time zones of China. Singapore and Western Australia are in the same time zone as the different jurisdictions in the geographical region of China too. Merge them too? Australia has three time zones in winter and five during summer, why is there only one article? — Insta ntnood 15:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. This article would better serve as the main article for the section on the time standard in mainland China after 1949. — Insta ntnood 09:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why?--Huaiwei 10:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, should we be merging the articles into Chinese Standard Time or Time zones of China?--Huaiwei 14:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We should merge them into Time in China. And yes, I think we should merge them. CharacterZero | Speak 17:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have merged it since no one had taken action for so long. -- Bovineone 05:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I’m all for it, following the Australian example… Also, the reason you wouldn’t include, say, Oz, or the Philippines is that, even tho they’re all on UTC +8, they have different standards bodies keeping track of things; there’s no coordinated “Southeast Asian” time (like ASEAN time) that they’re all on. —Wiki Wikardo 18:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, obviously i am dum, and completely failed to take into account the extremely polemic nature of the word China (which I interpret in everyday speech to be synonymous with the People’s Republic). The time zones of China article is absurdly nuts, and the section on PRC should be either here or at, like, an article called time zones of the People's Republic of China or something—or, really, maybe here, since time zones (plural) is somewhat inaccurate. Beijing Time? Hammer Time! 18:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since it’s been hella long, I’ma take down the merge notice. Wiki Wikardo

Daylight savings time

The article ambiguously starts out by saying that they "currently do not observe daylight saving time." According to native Chinese resident I've talked with, that is incorrect. In fact there is a term for it, "xia shi zhi" which literally means "summer time regime" Can anyone authoritative clarify or correct the statement? -- Bovineone 00:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, apparently they have discontinued DST in 1991. I'll update the article for clarity. -- Bovineone 04:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urumchee Time

OK, so I’ll let y’all fight it out/get to the bottom of this, but I inferred from a page that seems pretty recently updated that Ürümqi Time isn't only observed by the Uyghurs. Wiki Wikardo 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per reasonable request, no objection. If someone opposes the move, I imagine we'll hear from them eventually. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move, November

Chinese Standard Time → China Standard Time — Google hits 283 (most are Wikipedia mirrors) vs. 30900, and "China Standard Time" is the form at least used in Windows OS. Yao Ziyuan 11:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support per nom. Yao Ziyuan 11:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. It might be useful to rehash this if evidence from reliable sources (not Google hits) can be found. Dekimasu よ! 06:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China Standard Time → Beijing Time — The term is always "北京时间" (Beijing Time) in Chinese, the usage "China Standard Time" does not exist in Chinese, it is likely a misnomer use by people trying to imitate American time zone names. —Voidvector (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

oppose What matters is what it's commonly called in English, not Chinese. Evidence, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose because China Standard Time better conveys the idea that this is a political choice that spans a wide geographic area, in what would encompass several logical time zones. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this is not the Chinese Wikipedia, English usage is used. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support China is a big country, like the United States, for example and would cover five time zones. While most of the population is in the next to eastern most time zone, Beijing Time, China Standard Time is not standard terminology. Google gives 17,200 hits for "China Standard Time" and 290,000 for "Beijing Time". Since China doesn't even have daylight savings time, I would categorize China Standard Time as clearly erroneous, and not even used by anyone. The official term is Beijing Time, and is officially used for the entire country. I can't believe that anyone opposes this move. Nobody requested that it be changed to "北京时间". 199.125.109.52 (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Here is a Google test. Beijing Time (317,000) China Standard Time (17,400). And I had to narrow the search for "Beijing Time" with "GMT" because all the name pollution. --Voidvector (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use raw googling; it is not a reliable test. For one thing, as here, it picks up Wikipedia and its echoes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful for showing the existence of that usage; in this case, it shows both are in use. The Wikipedia taint can be reduced, but even if so it is not a particularly useful method of comparing prevalence of usage. Especially since quite often one search term is more ambiguous than another. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And do observe that raw google results would support "New York Time" GMT almost as well, although it is certainly not the name of Eastern Time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Standard Time gives almost four times as many results as New York Time. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.