Talk:UTC+00:00

Page title

Is there a reason that this page is UTC±0 (single digit) when the zones nearby are UTC+01 and UTC-02 etc (two digits)? Jlsa (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

What parts of Ireland are in a different timezone than the UK? Are the differences so large that the nation needs its own section?

Also, we need an explanation about the "standard time" and "winter time" designations. We wouldn't want readers to think Irish Standard Time was observed during the same period as Western European Time, as that would cause confusion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: clear consensus not to move the pages as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– The zeros in front of the time offsets are not necessary in the article titles. 2601:183:101:58D0:80F0:AFD1:B32:FE69 (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until I see a citation telling me why to believe that is true. I've generally seen it with leading 0s though there may be some specification I don't know about. Until then ...- - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 22:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, ISO 8601 even cites "Each date and time value has a fixed number of digits that must be padded with leading zeros." and I'd assume that the timezone is part of the time and date value. If the zeros in front of the time offsets are not in some articles, maybe it can be added there? -- Evilninja (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the ISO 8601 standard. I've never seen UTC without padded zeros anywhere. – TheGridExe (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about moving the pages to titles such as UTC+00, UTC+01, and UTC−01? The titles are still concise and compliant with ISO standards. 2601:183:101:58D0:E0B7:929F:8B6F:993C (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, zones like UTC−02:30 and UTC+13:45 exist... Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per all the above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

UTC±00:00 ¬= GMT

GMT can differ from UTC by a sizeable fraction of a second. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chatul:, no, you are thinking of UT1. GMT is just an alias for the UTC+00:00 time zone and thus aligns invariably with UTC in exactly the same way as every other time zone does. See leap second. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTC+00:00 vs UTC-00:00

The article is titled with a ± symbol, but there's no discussion of + vs - sign usage. Should this be added? Specifically, ISO 8601 requires the positive form and doesn't allow the negative form (per ISO 8601(E)§4.2.5.2). Also RFC 3339§4.3 has a special interpretation of the negative form that differs from the positive form in connotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mj1856 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title "UTC±00:00" is rather wrong. In ISO 8601, "±" is used only as a "placeholder" for plus or minus sign, when defining the representation format. For offset zero, is must be plus (and not minus). So it should be "UTC+00:00". However the mentioned ISO defines date/time format, and not (standalone) time zone notation, so I'm not 100% sure about "±" being wrong. —Mykhal (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mj1856: If you have access to ISO 8601(E)§4.2.5.2, could you quote the relevant few sentences here, please? I assume it doesn't say that UTC-01:00 is not allowed, that we should use UTC+23:00. My concern now is that the name of this article may need to be changed to UTC+00:00, so it would be best to have unambiguous supporting evidence. (It has always looked odd to me but I assumed that, since noone had ever changed it, it must be correct.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was incorrect on the section number. It is in 4.2.5.1, which says:

When it is required to indicate the difference between local time and UTC of day, the representation of the difference can be expressed in hours and minutes, or hours only. It shall be expressed as positive (i.e. with the leading plus sign [+]) if the local time is ahead of or equal to UTC of day and as negative (i.e. with the leading minus sign [-]) if it is behind UTC of day.
— Difference between local time and UTC of day, ISO 8601-2004(E)§4.2.5.1

However, I wouldn't rename this page because ISO 8601 is not the only standard to consider. In particular, RFC 3339 allows both + and -, where -00:00 has a special connotation:

If the time in UTC is known, but the offset to local time is unknown, this can be represented with an offset of "-00:00". This differs semantically from an offset of "Z" or "+00:00", which imply that UTC is the preferred reference point for the specified time.
— Unknown Local Offset Convention, RFC 3339 §4.3

mattjohnsonpint (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Zone Z, which is specifically +. The RFC convention should be mentioned, but it currently is not, which only reinforces that that is not particularly relevant. — kwami (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. The supporting votes were based on WP:COMMONNAME, a policy, while the opposition was based on "common sense"/WP:OR. Favonian (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTC±00:00 → UTC+00:00 – Per the previous thread, Zulu time zone is UTC+00:00. There is also an RFC convention for UTC−00:00, but that isn't even mentioned in this article. (It should be, IMO, but it's obviously not the primary topic.) Also, although there is both UTC+00:00 and (marginally) UTC−00:00, AFAICT there is no "UTC±00:00". If we feel there is a need to include both in the title despite not even mentioning one of them up till now, IMO we should do that explicitly by moving the article to "UTC+00:00 and UTC−00:00", but IMO that's not necessary: we should probably relegate the latter to a note, and could have UTC−00:00 as a RD to that section. — kwami (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: per nom. Never seen this with ±. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, and preferably add a note about UTC−00:00. Double sharp (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. UTC+00:00 and UTC-00:00 make no difference, as both are equal to UTC. So a ± is required to justify this fact. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 04:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hansen Sebastian but if this is not the WP:COMMONNAME then how is this construct not WP:OR? Also, in ISO 8601 the ± is only used as a placeholder (see above). YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is absolutely no difference between the positive and the negative. The combined symbol is the most descriptive. Shwcz (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This and the previous !vote are based on a false assumption. Per RFC 3339, there is a difference in connotation between UTC+00:00 and UTC−00:00: If the time in UTC is known, but the offset to local time is unknown, this can be represented with an offset of "-00:00". This differs semantically from an offset of "Z" or "+00:00", which imply that UTC is the preferred reference point for the specified time. Double sharp (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I don't get the oppose votes - this isn't a math problem, but rather a "what is the title used in real life" question. If there's evidence the ± version is the most common name, let's see it, but arguing on terms of math is misguided. SnowFire (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.