Talk:Coordinated Universal Time

Proposing to merge UTC offset here because the description of the offsets (the fact that they are usually in hour and sometimes in quarter hour increments, for example), is already described in Coordinated Universal Time#Time zones; for a list of offsets, List of UTC offsets already exists. While there is discussion of UTC offsets it's better placed in UTC itself, where there is context, or articles like Time zone and so on rather than linking it to UTC if it's more general discussion. Most of the UTC offset article is just a background summary of time zones, a few remarks on the patterns of offsets mostly already in the time zones section of UTC, and a list of some example offsets. The UTC offset article also currently has no citations. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support provided that it is a fully managed merger (there is some useful content there that is not also here), not just a fire-and-forget redirect. Also,there are about 400 incoming links to that article, so an explicit section name (or at least anchor) called "UTC offset" will be needed. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] The analogous section is "Time zones", I think, for the non-list content. Looking at the article again I can see how there could be a dedicated section for UTC offset -- e.g. "This difference is expressed with respect to UTC and is generally shown in the format ±[hh]:[mm], ±[hh][mm], or ±[hh]." I think it should just be a subsection of Time zones, though, and UTC offset should redirect there. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Support but I agree with JMF, this has to be done right! Pichpich (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Unnecessary. 124.19.40.114 (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support per JMF. 三葉草 San Yeh Tsao 05:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support with cautionary notes mentioned by JMF --ABehrens (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Not an improvement. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:5CFD:257A:34B0:358B (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support a merge in general, but oppose merging into UTC, I think it is best suited in time zone because that is what an UTC offset is in essence. But if there is no consensus for merging into time zone, I prefer merging into UTC over not merging at all. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. UTC offset deserves to be its own article. DangerousEagles (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support per JMF. Juwan (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Oppose(?) - why does Coordinated Universal Time § Time zones have as much detail as it does, rather than being a small section saying "your local time is probably not the same as UTC, because...", similar to Coordinated Universal Time § Daylight saving time? If there's no good reason, if UTC offset is to become a redirect, its contents should be merged to some place where non-zero offset from UTC are more relevant, such as Time zone. Guy Harris (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] UTC as a time zone is different from most other time zones, because most other time zones are only used within that zone, while UTC is multi-use; it's used in some time zones, around the world, and sometimes even on other celestial bodies. Examples of time zones that are used outside the limits of the zones are Pacific time and eastern time in the US, because television shows in neighboring zones often start at the same time as in these zones, and show announcements only mention eastern time and Pacific time. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] So perhaps there should be a "UTC time zone" section that only talks about the UTC+00:00 time zone, leaving the general notion of a time zone and the other time zones up to time zone (into which UTC offset could be merged if it's not considered to deserve its own page). Guy Harris (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] it's used in some time zones I.e, it's used in the UTC+00:00 time zone (perhaps with DST, so the time may be an hour off from UTC during part of the year)? around the world But is it used as a time zone around the world, or is a case of "using UTC rather than local time"? sometimes even on other celestial bodies Is that a case of "using UTC because we haven't divided celestial body X into however many time zones it requires"? I.e., is this "UTC vs. local time for a time zone" rather than "UTC as a time zone"? Guy Harris (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] For use outside areas where the prime meridian doesn't pass through, or near, the place of interest, I think it's used when it's more useful to think about time on a worldwide basis, as in aviation, or long-range radio. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] So not really a time zone in that case - it's for time when you want not to be dealing with a particular time zone, you want something, well, universal. And in the case of locales in the UTC+00:00 timezone, it's "the time zone where the standard-time offset from UTC happens to be 0", so it's a time zone, but no more tied to UTC than UTC[+/-]hhmm for any non-zero value of hmmm. So I'm not sure UTC should be considered a time zone, and maybe Coordinated Universal Time § Time zones should significantly smaller than it is now, and shouldn't have UTC offset in it - much of the section, plus perhaps UTC offset, belongs in Time zone. Guy Harris (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Per above. 2001:8003:9060:601:C97F:D37F:2165:418E (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1810