Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indian Standard Time

Indian Standard Time

I had submitted this article in August for FAC (nom) but it failed as it did not get any support to be promoted (+1/-1). I have reviewed the objection carefully since then and don't think it is paramount to add it in the article. Any suggestions welcome (if I can find credible sources). It is currently rated as a Good article. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support; I read Rama's comments from the last time around, and I feel that this covers what is necessary. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 03:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose; Too short, and I don't like how the sections begin abruptly like this one.

1) With an east-west distance of over 2,000 km (1,200 mi), the sun rises and sets an hour earlier in eastern India than in the west.

2) Begin with an introductory sentence that describes the problems with the ist. (Wikimachine 12:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC))

Reply. Both problems addressed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum. Being "too short" isn't an actionable concern unless what is missing is pointed out. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ummm... too short is not actionable. You would have to state what content it lacks that it is too short. And lenght is not a problem. We have a couple of featured articles shorter than this. =Nichalp «Talk»= 00:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

In comparative sense, many other standard time articles should also be featured articles if this should one also, for example Time in Australia. This should apply for good article, if it wants to try. Additional topics that could expand this article are broadcasting concerns, list of metropolitan areas/states within the zone, inaccuracy & standards (in relation to Earth's orbit & rotation & axis), & anomalies. I didn't think of these out of blue, they are in other time zone articles such as Central European Time, etc. (Wikimachine 03:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC))

Time in Australia is hardly referenced (no inline refs), and what is more important, I don't even see it going to FAC, so there is no question of it being rejected on grounds that it is short. If the referencing concerns are addressed, I am sure that TiA can also be a featured article. For comparison, Crushing by elephant is nearly the same size as this one, and it is a featured article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

But we're not talking about referencing, I think this article's fine in that. & as I've mentioned in the section below, justification is not necessary. This is probably the first time when a standard time article becomes a featured article (if it does). So it needs different standards. And I think that this article needs to be really good to make a worthy precedent for other standard time articles to follow. And I personally don't think that those other articles about exploding whale, Crushing by elephant, Japanese toilets, etc. should be featured articles. (Wikimachine 17:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

Can you elucidate what you mean by "broadcasting concerns". The list of metropolitan areas in the zone would be useless as it has been mentioned in the first sentence of the lead that IST is followed throughout India, without any exceptions. Inaccuracies & standards WRT Earth's orbit are better discussed in a dedicated article like Equation of time, and the same info need not be repeated in all the time zone articles as it is beyond their scope. Anyway, thanks for pointing out this relevant topic and I have added it to the "See also" section. Anomalies usually occur when there is different standard prevailing for places that should have a common standard. Since IST is applied everywhere, there are no anomalies. Of course, a single standard comes with its own set of problems, which have been discussed in the "Problems" section. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies & standards are specific to this article because they vary among different time zones. I don't expect readers to be able to go to Indian Standard Time Zone, go to Equation of Time, calculate the differences & anomalies & the say "aha!".

You could add something about the time zone's uniformity. Another user could never know what's missing & what's not. About broadcasting concern, I don't think that this zone has one because as you said it is standard throughout all of India. (Wikimachine 17:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

• Comment A few of the paragraphs in the History section are without citations. Gzkn 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. Done. Please tell if more are required. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you got them all. I am concerned, however, with the recent addition of a trivia section, which should usually be avoided. Gzkn 07:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I have removed it as a Trivia section is not recommended for FAs. To preserve the information for future development, I have re-created the article here. Hope this is acceptable. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The image Image:IST-CIA-TZ.png is no longer correct. Sri Lanka now follows IST. Right now that is the most "visible" gaffe. Secondly the line that DST was used in the 62, 65 and 71 wars states "to reduce civilian energy consumption." but the source doesn't mention that as the reason, in fact it doesn't give any reason why it was used. It's only an assumption that DST is mostly used to save energy. While it's the most likely reason a cite would be better. Idleguy 08:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. The image has been updated now. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering that energy saving is primary (if not only) reason for DST, is a reference really required? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that it was used as a wartime measure, it could also have been used in order to deter night lights serving as a beacon for enemy planes if they attacked cities late in the evening or at the crack of dawn. That's a possibility, that's why a source stating the reason would be better. Many war time memories state that vehicles were asked to switch off lights for this purpose as few military planes had night vision. Idleguy 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

True, but that's technically called a blackout, not a DST. The source clearly mentions DST, not blackout. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Such a possibility might have used it as a deterrance measure, but it would be more suited to the border areas rather than changing the timezone of the entire country. Again this would be speculative. =Nichalp «Talk»= 00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article's history says vipala is the smallest unit of measuring time based on hindu traditions. But according to Hindu astronomy, half a nimesa (ardha nimesa) is the smallest one. After doing some math I found that vipala works out to 1/216,000th of a day while half a nimesa is 1/405000 day according to that article. One of these must be wrong, or maybe I'm confused. Idleguy 11:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. I have fixed it. I searched again and found prativa pala as the smallest unit (=.006 s). Thanks for pointing out the inconsistancy. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • There are still a couple of issues including the citation not matching what is written. For instance, note #2 points to a BBC article that only says that the issue was being investigated and doesn't say anything about it was not recommended, or the reasons why it was not adopted. I found that an earlier mention to the hindu article was wrongly pointed to some other website, but I corrected it myself. The article has to say why it was not adopted with proper cite. Also, the article should mention the official internet page where the time can be checked. AIR and Doordarshan are mentioned, but I'm assuming that an official website exists somewhere. Idleguy 14:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good compact article. Meets FA criteria. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Is licensing Image:IST-CIA-TZ.png as {{pd-self}} acceptable, considering it is a derived work?--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 17:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. I am sure it is. The original work is licensed as a {{PD-self}}, which means that the author doesn't claim any right on the image any more. This means that there is no authorship claim on the image and the image is truly free. This allows anyone to pass on the image under any license, even as a self-created work. However, to make things clear that the image has been sourced from such a work, a link to the original image has been provided. Even this, I believe, is courtesy, not a requirement considering the waiver of all rights over the image by the original author. Note that even the original work is derived from PD work, i.e. CIA World Factbook, and claimed as PD-self. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Support - Thank you. That sounds logical. You have my support. For conspiracy theorists: I have been following this article since it had been in PR, and I believe it discusses the subject matter to the standards required by featured content.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 13:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support A nice article with a length that does not intimidate. We need more of these. --Blacksun 19:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support: A great article with detailed information ("Indian Standard Time (IST) is the time observed throughout India, with a time offset of UTC+5:30. India does not observe daylight saving time (DST) or other seasonal adjustments, although DST was used briefly during the Sino–Indian War of 1962, and the Indo–Pakistani Wars of 1965 and 1971") that covers the history as well as problems of Indian Standard Time. User:Sd31415/Sig 00:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support This article is well written and well referenced with appropriate use of inline citations. Jay32183 18:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Here & Absolute Oppose

• I checked national identity of the 7 Wikipedians (besides me) who participate in this featured article promotion.
• 6/7 Wikipedians are Indians.
• 3/7 Wikipedians here edited the article.
• Absolutely Oppose.
• Conspiracy.
• Unless you bring in more third party voters, I'm reporting this to a higher branch in Wikipedia, such as the Arbitration Committee. (Wikimachine 03:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC))
  • Hmmm...if this indeed were a conspiracy, you would have already seen my support on the article. I supported the article in the last FAC, but since I now consider it a semi co-nom as I have edited the article a lot, I haven't shown my "Support" for the article. Also, if you were regular at FAC, you would have seen Spangineer as a neutral and (ahem....) ruthless participator in FAC debates. Also, it is a good thing if the reviewers make a good faith effort in improving the article. If you see my edit history, you would have seen that I edit almost 80~90% of the articles I see during FAC. Again, you need not worry about these things as FAC is not even a !vote, and a single valid objection is enough to sink the article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If there were conspiracies, Idleguy and Deepujoseph would have registered support, rather than raising concerns that could sink the FAC. I see 3 Indians who have supported this, and 2 Indians who have raised concerns. (Me and Nichalp have not !voted as this is a co-nom). So it is anybody's guess if this is conspiracy to promote or reject. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • \FAC is not a vote. No one is obliged to bring in third party votes. If you have some objections regarding the content of the article, then it would be useful to all if you could list them. If you can't find any points to object, then your conspiracy theory is moot as according to you the article is already FA standards. Please note that Raul does not just count the number of votes while promoting articles, but also checks if all the concerns by other editors have been addressed. And then there is also AGF. Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I also want to add that Wikimachine's opposition due to what he/she perceives as an "Indian conspiracy" is quite offensive and has nothing to do with the content of the article. Gzkn 07:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• I find it really funny that Wikimachine wants to push it to arbitration. If he so wishes he may do so, but please do remember what the Arbcom is meant for before you submit your case. Don't say we didn't warn you if your case is unanimously thrown out. Next, five of the people who have commented/supported the article have at least one featured article to their name. So your case of a people blindly voting based on their nationality seems to be a matter of making wild accusations which I consider offensive as you haven't researched on who is reviewing the article. If the article is as bad as you say, why don't you help us by telling us what criteria of WP:WIAFA it does not meet? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I never meant it as Indian conspiracy. But this is what I consider internal systemic bias. I can imagine a group of foreigners who only participate in articles regarding topics pertaining to their own culture/history & since they are the only ones participating in it, they could be the only ones participating in the featured article candidate discussion & thus making featured article status inevitable.
  • Foreigners? I'm not sure which country you're from, so I'm not sure which nationalities you would consider foreigners. Would an article on an American topic that was passed by mostly American editors qualify for similar suspicion? What about Canada? The UK? MLilburne 18:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'm disregarding the fact that some of you "commented" instead of "voting" & I'm not going to check editing history of every one of you b/c (1) I don't think I can (2) Too many (3) Simpler option: bring in third party.
• I'd say third party is absolutely needed, regardless of whether something is a vote or not. Community consensus means not only opinions from one type of nationality/culture, but a mix.
• It fails to comply with 1 (b): "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details. I've listed additional topics that the article could cover (since other standard time articles cover them) & there is no reason why if this should be a featured article, others should be also.
• "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant. I've noted few format/style problems, and I can note much more brilliant quality in other featured articles. There's no reason why because some featured articles were nominated in shorter form than this one this one should be. Maybe, we need to correct our previous mistakes. This type of justification is unnecessary.
• This is a vote, that's why voting's taking place (?). The paragraph in the very top part of this page says that consensus must be reached. Quotation from the article Wikipedia:Consensus:

Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. However, when supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus.

(Wikimachine 16:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

• I'm bringing in third parties from Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, random admins, etc. So don't close this vote yet. (Wikimachine 16:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

You are free to bring in more editors to weigh on this article and we would appreciate any additional feedback on the article. But as mentioned earlier, I would repeat that unlike the processes like RfA where numbers can't be disregarded, FACs depend totally on merit and even a single valid opposition is good enough to stop the article from being a featured article. If you don't believe me, ask Raul, who handles FAC promotions. Also, there are reasons why some people restrict themselves to a category of articles. One of them is that they are confident in their knowledge in that particular field only, and are in better position to comment on comprehensiveness. For example, if I ask you to review Chalukya Dynasty, you would hadly be in a position to comment anything other than spelling and grammer. So I see it a positive sign that people only pass their judgment on what they are confident about. Secondly, the Indian Wikiproject is a very active workgroup with lot of closely working people so that whenever any help is needed, there are always a big group of people to refer to. This has helped us in our previous endevours to get FAs as even before the articles are submitted for FA, there is very rigourous review of the article by the workgroup itself. I wouldn't be wrong to say that selection into the Indian portal is one of the biggest challenge that could be faced by an article after FAC. You won't see that in case of this article, as Nichalp already has 10 FA under his belt so he knows what are the common mistakes and objections. For example see the recently concluded discussion on Culture of Thiruvananthapuram article to get selected into the Indian Portal. Would you say that there is conspiracy for selection to even Indian Portal? Coming back to the issues of merits of the article (which probably should be our primary concern). I have addressed all concerns raised by you except for the "broadcasting concerns" which I am unable to comprehend. If you can clarify what you want, even that can be addressed. As regards to quality of prose, please point out where the article lacks, as it is very difficult for us if you don't even point out where the article lacks. With regards to the size of the article, even I don't want that to be a part of the debate, but I remember that you first brought that into picture and I had to address that. Personally speaking, I feel that we should talk about this specific article, rather than any general article. Finally, I again repeat that FAC is not a !vote. Hope this clears the doubts in your mind. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am changing my stance. I've looked at all other standard time articles in process of searching for what this article might lack.... But most other time zone articles have one word/sentence & then list of metropolitan areas. So I am willing to support if you would add something about the anomalies in rotation, etc. in the Problem sections. But let users that I've invited comment also as due process of reaching consensus. (Wikimachine 17:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for your change in stance. Do you suggest we duplicate information from Equation of time to all time articles in this list? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Support It support the article. Amartyabag 12:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The following WikiProjects have been notified: Countering systemic bias, Japan, Germany, Russia, United States. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I am here because of the comment left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany. It is preposterous to object to an FAC on the grounds that the most people voting (and yes, FAC is a vote, it's not like AFD here) are interested in the article. This is certainly true for every other FAC ever since the beginning of Wikipedia. People who are interested in the article are the ones who come to vote on whether it should be an FA. Big deal. —Angr 17:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)