FW: Update for Asia/Calcutta timezone
I'm forwarding this message from Nicholas Alphonso, who is not on the time zone mailing list. Those of you who are on the list, please direct replies appropriately. --ado From: Nicholas Alphonso [mailto:nichalp@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:50 To: tz@lecserver.nci.nih.gov Subject: Update for Asia/Calcutta timezone I seek to update the name of the Asia/Calcutta timezone (+0530 UTC). Why Calcutta was chosen in 1970 when Calcutta was India's most most populated city. Since then, • Calcutta has been renamed Kolkata (2001) • Mumbai (formerly Bombay) overtook Calcutta as India's most populous city (1991 census) Note: Time in India is calculated from Mirzapur near the city of Allahabad. I seek to change the name of the timezone to • Asia/Mumbai (based on the most populous city) OR • Asia/New Delhi (capital of India, second most populated, more centrally located) Regards, Nicholas
As I understand it, it's not even close: nowadays Mumbai aka Bombay has more than 2x the people of Kolkata aka Calcutta. Also, "Mumbai" is more commonly used in English to refer to the name of the city. So this suggests that we should change it to Asia/Mumbai. Further comments are welcome.
On Jan 4, 2011, at 4:34 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
As I understand it, it's not even close: nowadays Mumbai aka Bombay has more than 2x the people of Kolkata aka Calcutta.
Also, "Mumbai" is more commonly used in English to refer to the name of the city. So this suggests that we should change it to Asia/Mumbai.
Further comments are welcome.
Does it make sense to keep changing zone names to track ever changing demographics? I don't think so. If the capital of the country is in the zone in question, that's the only city name that makes sense. If a zone needs to be named for some place other than the capital, then it makes sense to pick a big city, or the best known city. But pick it and stick with it, don't try to keep changing things to track population shifts. That just creates churn for no benefit. Especially in this case, where both city names are well known. paul
On 01/04/11 13:46, Paul Koning wrote:
If the capital of the country is in the zone in question, that's the only city name that makes sense.
But capitals change too (for example, Kazakhstan). No naming principle will work everywhere, and it's probably better to stick with the principles that we have. The question here is when one principle (use the most-populous city) should override another one (avoid name changes). It's not a slam-dunk case either way, which is why I asked for further comments.
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 22:57, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
But capitals change too (for example, Kazakhstan). No naming principle will work everywhere, and it's probably better to stick with the principles that we have. The question here is when one principle (use the most-populous city) should override another one (avoid name changes). It's not a slam-dunk case either way, which is why I asked for further comments.
FWIW, I'd favour the "avoid name changes" principle. There are a number of zones which have "the wrong" name (typically this means "not the current capital"). As long as the city stays in the zone, I'd tend to keep it. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>
On Jan 4, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Philip Newton wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 22:57, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
But capitals change too (for example, Kazakhstan). No naming principle will work everywhere, and it's probably better to stick with the principles that we have. The question here is when one principle (use the most-populous city) should override another one (avoid name changes). It's not a slam-dunk case either way, which is why I asked for further comments.
FWIW, I'd favour the "avoid name changes" principle.
There are a number of zones which have "the wrong" name (typically this means "not the current capital"). As long as the city stays in the zone, I'd tend to keep it.
Agreed. And yes, capitals can change, good point. I was thinking about the case of a new zone that needs a name. For that, I would start with the capital if it's in the zone, otherwise the biggest or best known town. Then, once the name has been assigned, leave it alone. Exception: if the town that was picked changes its own name (e.g., Calcutta). paul
I agree. Once we have a city in that zone, let's leave it be. BTW, I don't think a city can ever 'leave' a zone. The zone could split, but part of it would still contain the city (assuming no disaster that wipes the city away completely). Take a hypothetical: let's suppose that Southern California seceded from the United States. Even in that situation I think what should happen is something like: US +340308-1181434 America/Los_Angeles Pacific Time => SC +340308-1181434 America/Los_Angeles US +374736-1223317 America/San_Francisco Pacific Time Mark *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 14:00, Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 22:57, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
But capitals change too (for example, Kazakhstan). No naming principle will work everywhere, and it's probably better to stick with the principles that we have. The question here is when one principle (use the most-populous city) should override another one (avoid name changes). It's not a slam-dunk case either way, which is why I asked for further comments.
FWIW, I'd favour the "avoid name changes" principle.
There are a number of zones which have "the wrong" name (typically this means "not the current capital"). As long as the city stays in the zone, I'd tend to keep it.
Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>
On Jan 4, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Philip Newton wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 22:57, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
But capitals change too (for example, Kazakhstan). No naming principle will work everywhere, and it's probably better to stick with the principles that we have. The question here is when one principle (use the most-populous city) should override another one (avoid name changes). It's not a slam-dunk case either way, which is why I asked for further comments.
FWIW, I'd favour the "avoid name changes" principle.
There are a number of zones which have "the wrong" name (typically this means "not the current capital"). As long as the city stays in the zone, I'd tend to keep it.
Not to mention the countries with more than one capital. Regards Marshall
Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>
Hi, It is a worthwhile exploration and I commend those who are putting their time and energy. Among "Asia/Mumbai" and "Asia/New Delhi", "Asia/New Delhi" better represents India. Before sending out this email, I talked to ten friends and co-workers who are Indians, or were born in India, and did a poll via Facebook. Even people from Mumbai and Kolkata commented that although personally there are happy if the tz is named after their city, "Asia/New Delhi" is better choice for India. Copying one such response, from my unscientific poll among Facebook friends: Saurav wrote: "Though I live in Kolkata and love the city - I think, New Delhi will be apt - because its our Capital. Its gives us our identity as India." Sincerely, Shreyas Kumar Sr. Member of Technical Staff Oracle America Inc 500 Oracle pkwy Redwood Shores CA 94065 On 1/4/2011 6:36 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Jan 4, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Philip Newton wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 22:57, Paul Eggert<eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
But capitals change too (for example, Kazakhstan). No naming principle will work everywhere, and it's probably better to stick with the principles that we have. The question here is when one principle (use the most-populous city) should override another one (avoid name changes). It's not a slam-dunk case either way, which is why I asked for further comments. FWIW, I'd favour the "avoid name changes" principle.
There are a number of zones which have "the wrong" name (typically this means "not the current capital"). As long as the city stays in the zone, I'd tend to keep it. Not to mention the countries with more than one capital.
Regards Marshall
Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton<philip.newton@gmail.com>
And yes, capitals can change, good point. I was thinking about the case of a new zone that needs a name. For that, I would >>start with the capital if it's in the zone, otherwise the biggest or best known town. Then, once the name has been assigned, leave >>it alone.
Kolkatta/Calcutta used to be a major city in the past, but other cities in India have overtaken it in significance. This trend has been observed for three decades now. If I may be at liberty to use Google Fight to compare the trends on Google, then by comparing Bombay/Calcutta & Mumbai/Kolkata, it throws up a highly skewed ratio in favour of Bombay/Mumbai. I'm not sure if there is a precedent before for changing names of a time zone in such a fashion, but I make my request so that the timezone name chosen is not archaic ie reflecting historical trends -- but rather reflecting current and future realities that have been fairly stable over several decades. I think changing the timezone name to Asia/New Delhi would be more representative of the country since India follows a single timezone. Regards, Nicholas On 5 January 2011 08:06, Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv> wrote:
On Jan 4, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Philip Newton wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 22:57, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
But capitals change too (for example, Kazakhstan). No naming principle will work everywhere, and it's probably better to stick with the principles that we have. The question here is when one principle (use the most-populous city) should override another one (avoid name changes). It's not a slam-dunk case either way, which is why I asked for further comments.
FWIW, I'd favour the "avoid name changes" principle.
There are a number of zones which have "the wrong" name (typically this means "not the current capital"). As long as the city stays in the zone, I'd tend to keep it.
Not to mention the countries with more than one capital.
Regards Marshall
Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>
For what it is worth, Asia/Calcutta was already renamed to Asia/Kolkata many years ago. The old name, Asia/Calcutta is preserved as a backwards compatibility alias to Asia/Kolkata. -Scott On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
As I understand it, it's not even close: nowadays Mumbai aka Bombay has more than 2x the people of Kolkata aka Calcutta.
Also, "Mumbai" is more commonly used in English to refer to the name of the city. So this suggests that we should change it to Asia/Mumbai.
Further comments are welcome.
-- Scott Atwood The hill isn't in the way, it is the way.
participants (9)
-
Mark Davis ☕ -
Marshall Eubanks -
Nicholas Alphonso -
Olson, Arthur David (NIH/NCI) [E] -
Paul Eggert -
Paul Koning -
Philip Newton -
Scott Atwood -
Shreyas Kumar