talk:Iran Standard Time
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{WikiProject Geographical coordinates}}
{{WikiProject Time|importance=Low|priority=}}
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Iran |importance=Low}}
}}
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Time/Assessment|WikiProject Time assessment rating]] comment
Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
Requested move
:The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Not sure how the Template:Asia in topic is related to this since that template doesn't have a link to this, but if there is such a problem, the template should be fixed rather than renaming the article. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 07:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
----
:Iran Standard Time → Time in Iran — Use old name which was used by User:Tobias Conradi, otherwise Template:Asia in topic is broken. TimeCurrency (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Strong oppose This is not about time in Iran, it's about Iran's timezone. I see nothing about solar time, traditional methods of dating, Zoroastrian calendar in this article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - per 70.29.210.242; this article is congruent with Eastern Standard Time or Coordinated Universal Time. Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
: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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Coherence
I do not find the second paragraph in the introduction section really relevant to this article:
"Between 2005 and 2008, by decree of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran did not observe daylight saving time (called Iran Daylight Time or IRDT).[1][2] It was reintroduced from 21 March 2008."
This text looked to be highly relevant back then when this rule was applied (during the years 2005->2008), but at the moment it looks more like a piece of news or historical information which is not cohesive with the main text of this article anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkiaeeha (talk • contribs) 16:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)