Talk:List of military time zones
|WikiProject Time||(Rated List-class, Mid-importance)|
Timezone Versus Offset Designation
"This is a list of time zone names" should likely be changed to something more like "This is a list of military designations for given UTC offsets". For example, the Canadian Forces treat Romeo and Quebec as offset designations (-0500 and -0400 respectively), and use the local time zone (Eastern) when referencing a timezone.
- The designation was decided by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) in the mid- 1950's and they designated the letters to each time zone. The designation was taken up by the military forces of NATO by 1959 and since by other military forces through the world. It is also used now by the mercantile fleets of most countries. The fact that the US Military uses it does not in anyway confer originality on the US - much as they might like to claim it. The conference was held in Switzerland by the International Telecommunications Union.The Geologist (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't able to find anything other than this, and things that referenced it backing the use of J/Juliet. RFC 822 even states (Page 26) “The letter "J" is not used.” Added a  tag for now, but if this isn't suppported anywhere, it should be removed. PiAndWhippedCream (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree... I have not been able to find a reference that the military would consider authoritative for the use of "J" time zone designator to indicate local. If you know of it, I would be very interested to learn what it is. Thank you, Captpossum (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Also agreed. Changed the text to reflect more of an optional use in some locations/fields; and not to take it as anything official. I also couldn't find any actual references for the usage of the "J" designator (ACP 121 only states that "J" is omitted). Some thing interesting that I did find is that in the Canadian Forces, some individuals/units actually used the "L" time desingator as "Local", which is also incorrect!Tharkhold (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Daylight savings time
The text "which does not use daylight savings" should be removed. It implies GMT uses DST, which it does not. This is a common error especially by those that live in the UK area. The time in Greenwich is not synonymous with GMT. Sometimes the time in Greenwich is GMT+1 (British Summer Time BST). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaell (talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, when was Greenwich Mean Time ever offset for daylight saving? I'm going to remove that misleading sentence if there's nothing to it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Out of pure curiosity, How do they refer to places where DST applies? For instance, I live in Spain. If I had to refer to 22:00 local time during summer time, would it be any of these?
- 2100A (our official time, the one we use in the winter, is UTC+1, therefore the time without DST would be 21:00)
- 2200A (simply ignoring whether DST applies or not, and thus applying the local official time at the given date)
- 2200B (which would be our summertime in the ALFA zone, UTC+2)
- 2100A+1 (or something else to make clear it is summer time)
Thanks in advance for any clarifying answer!
Is that a standard, to change your time zone code for Summer time? For example, Sydney is Kilo zone and normally UTC+10; does it become Lima zone in Summer when it's UTC+11? Could someone who knows what they are on about please put some information in this article concerning that? Thanks. Mathsgirl (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Is RFC 822 wrong, is the Standard for the Formate of ARPA Internet Text Messages purposly the reverse of military time zones, or is there something I am missing?
- I agree. RFC822 does indeed seem to be the reverse of what is given here. I haven't yet found an official document specifying the system here (and perhaps some of the primary sources are classified documents), but I have removed the confusing reference to the RFC. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- On further investigation I see that the confusion in RFC822 is pointed out at http://www.hackcraft.net/web/datetime/#note2
- RFC 1123 pointed out the error in RFC 822.
- The confusing material has been removed from later specifications such as RFC 3339.
- Thanks to 22.214.171.124 for pointing out the error. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Mike and Yankee times
UTC Offsets - West / East ~ Negative/Positive ?
I'm a total newbie to Wikipedia editing, so please let me know if I'm not following protocol properly.
It seems to me that the paragraph below contradicts the table further down in the article.
Going east from the prime meridian at Greenwich, letters Alpha through Mike (skipping "J", see below) are used for the 12 time zones with mainly positive UTC offsets until reaching the International Date Line. Going west from Greenwich, letters November through Yankee are used for zones with negative time offsets.
If the table is correct then I think this paragraph should read something like:
Going west from the prime meridian at Greenwich, letters Alpha through Mike (skipping "J", see below) are used for the 12 time zones with negative UTC offsets until reaching the International Date Line. Going east from Greenwich, letters November through Yankee are used for zones with positive time offsets.
- Your confusion arose because an IP editor made changes yesterday that got the table back to front. I have now put it back to the correct version. Zone A is the first one to the East of Greenwich, Central European Time, UTC+1, 1300 there when it is 1200 GMT. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Star designation for ±0030
I'm on a university network right now; hopefully this post still turns out fine.
I have read that a time zone which is thirty minutes more extreme of UTC than a time zone uses an * (asterisk, pronounced "star") to show it. For example, Indian Standard Time (UTC+05:30) is written E* and pronounced "echo star," indicating that it is thirty minutes farther from UTC than E.
The ACP document we have here uses N* for N with a footnote, so clearly this distinction is not relevant to them-- they do not offer a NATO phonetic for such ±0030 zones.