Talk:Eastern Daylight Savings Time

WP:IAR influence

 * This is copied from our personal talk pages :reproducing our discussions about the page since it was introduced as a page containing two soft redirects, per IAR. // Fra nkB 19:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, missed the mark
re: this disagreement, complete with edit conflict. My motive is EDST, like CEST, etc... not the entry per se. That's steps on the path. There is no reason not to have a little disambig page like this that links to both articles on the matter, and it gets the category right. Cheers // Fra nkB 17:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Daylight Savings Time
Soft redirects are primarily used for interwiki links. Thus, I think we'd be better off adding a 'See also' section. Sorry for bothering you,  SpL o T  // 04:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * NBD, but a simple redirect won't do. This did he job per NEED. Remember you and I are expected to make editorial judgments, as part of the job... and keep in mind that guidelines cannot anticipate all situtations nor are they meant to shackle and prevent creative solutions that work. Hence once in a while, use WP:IAR and be creative. Since dic-defs are strongly frowned on, and the term needs covered and burying it without reference to Summer/daylight savings time seems unsuitable. This seems the best compromise between other standards and the NEED. If the needs aren't paramount, we're all just masterbating and may as well close up shop and spend time in RL. I understand your point on softredirects normally being interwiki (there aren't many editors with my presence on so many wiki sister projects! See WP:TSP!), but that's historical happenstance, not a firm rule set in concrete. I added a (now somewhat inaccurate category) but unless you want to rewrite Eastern Daylight Time to prominently include this term in the header, this will do for me. I'm interested in coverage, not necessarily perfection 'per procedures'. Cheers // Fra nkB  19:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unclear why this is a separate page
I read the above discussion, and it's not at all clear why there should be two pages for exactly the same concept. Let's merge them. Why not? Eubulides 06:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)