Talk:Uniform Time Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Open Questions

I intentionally obfuscated these points:

• What does the law say? Did it offer incentives to states for getting with the program, and if so are states free to change their mind later? Does it require them to do so, under the authority of the federal power to regulate interstate commerce, and if so, was the applicability considered an open-and-shut case, or if not, was it adjudicated? (IMO, this might be a good illustrative case for federal/state relations.)
• An Indian reservation in AZ (Navajo?) is an example of DST within a non-DST state. Is the exception official? Is there a practical reason for putting up with the confusion, or is it primarily an assertion of tribal sovereignty? Is there an explicit exception in the act for some or all tribes, or an uncontestedly applicable provision in another law? What is the history of DST there since the act? (Is it a carry-over from before the act?) Do Federal officials comply with reservation practice or the no-variation-within-state pattern in their dealings with the tribal authorities and the populace?
• Are there exceptions besides those cited in the Time zone article?

--Jerzy(t) 17:38, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)

---

[edit] "External links" vs "External link"

Some editors use the header External link if there is only one link, but others use External links in all cases. There is currently no consensus on the preferred style. Editors who always use the plural form may prefer it for any of the following reasons:

1. Experience shows that future editors often add links without changing the section heading.
2. Some contributors may be dissuaded from adding links to a section titled External link, since it seems to suggest that there should only be one link.
3. Using External links gives greater stylistic consistency to Wikipedia.
4. Changing a heading breaks any links directly to the External links section.
5. The purpose of the section is to provide External links rather than a single External link, so it does not matter how many actual links are listed.

The converse arguments are:

1. Wikipedia's community-editing usually leads to prompt correction of such oversights.
2. There is no evidence to show that a significant number of contributors may be dissuaded from adding links to a section titled External link.
3. In one sense, the use of External links to head a section containing a single link is grammatically incorrect.

It is my belief that the former approach brings more uniformity to wikipedia, thus the style edit. Kukini 06:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)