Talk:Billion

Primary topic

What is the point of this? Is this going to be turned into a proper article? In any case, if this page is to exist, then it must surely be the primary topic for billion, and be renamed Billion, with the disambiguation page being renamed Billion (disambiguation). W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Billion which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cfr.: now, not Talk:Billion but Talk:Billion (disambiguation)

cfr.: now, not Talk:Billion but Talk:Billion (disambiguation) (that talk section). --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've quoted this, from Talk:Billion (disambiguation) to here. It was moved

Billion → Billion (disambiguation)
Billion (number) → Billion

– Topic of the article Billion (number) is primary. At least, it is almost certainly what a reader is looking for if typing "billion".

no interwiki links at the article. I don't understand.

If it's primary topic, I don't understand an article with no interwiki links. I think the explanation is with the great/big diff. with:

Here, Talk:Billion (disambiguation)
- and almost nothing, where I begun my search, Talk:Billion.
  - More, I see two archives there: Talk:Billion_(disambiguation)/Archive 1, Talk:Billion_(disambiguation)/Archive 2.

I have to leave, now. Ciao! --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction in American English

The article says "American English adopted the short scale definition from the French" but in French we use the long scale, "billion" means 10¹² and we use the word milliard for 10⁹. Is this saying that billion comes from the French milliard, or is it saying that the french historically used the short scale billion and later changed? Joancharmant (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

France originally used the long scale and then switched to the short scale. During this time the Americans adopted the French definition. The French later reverted to the long scale after World War 2. A full explanation is given in the "History" section. Betty Logan (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French wikipedia states that it was in partial use in France when the Americans adopted it, that it was not generalized yet. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits by Trigenibinion

There has been a sequence of edits by Trigenibinion, repeatedly tagging because he is not able to access the source, paraphrasing a source he claims he cannot read], and using foreign-language Wikipedias as a source (which violates WP:CIRCULAR).

I don't quite know what the issue is here, whether he is directly challenging the claim, if this is a language barrier issue or whether he is just being a disruptive presence. However, the edits are disruptive and making the article unstable. I strongly suggest that Trigenibinion comes to the talk page and attempt to articulate the problem. If he is directly challenging the source then he must produce an alternative reliable source to challenge the existing claim with. Betty Logan (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not me who has been disruptive

1. I requested clarification

2. The request was removed, and I noted the reference was behind paywall

3. The request was clarified

4. I improved the clarification according to French wikipedia

5. The improvement was removed because apparently it did not match the paywalled source

6. I added French wikipedia as a source for the improvement

7. The improvement was removed because French wikipedia was not considered authoritative

8. I come to discuss the issue to the talk page

9. I am accused of acting in bad faith Trigenibinion (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that I do not know what you mean by "clarification"? Here is everything the OED say:

Etymology: < French billion, purposely formed in 16th cent. to denote the second power of a million adj. and n. (by substituting bi- comb. form for the initial letters), trillion and quadrillion being similarly formed to denote its 3rd and 4th powers. The name appears not to have been adopted in English before the end of the 17th cent.: see quot. from Locke. Subsequently the application of the word was changed by French arithmeticians, figures being divided in numeration into groups of threes, instead of sixes, so that French billion, trillion, denoted not the second and third powers of a million, but a thousand millions and a thousand thousand millions. In the 19th century, the U.S. adopted the French convention, but Britain retained the original and etymological use (to which France reverted in 1948). Since 1951 the U.S. value, a thousand millions, has been increasingly used in Britain, especially in technical writing and, more recently, in journalism; but the older sense ‘a million millions’ is still common.

However there is nothing really in there that is not already in the article. That is all there is but I honestly don't see what needs to be clarified. Betty Logan (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The French page claims that it was a minority using the short scale in France at the time it was imported to America (reformists). According to one of the references in the French page (authoritative), the definition was already in the official dictionary. The page then states that much later, when it was being taught in US schools, it was still in partial use in France and did not become generalized until later. That's why "the French used it" (at that the time of introduction to America) is misleading. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I appreciate what the issue is. However I am not conversant in French so I cannot consult the sources in the French article. Are you able to write up the history of the French usage here and copy the sources over? The sources have to be physically placed in this article for it to be verifiable. Betty Logan (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if there are some accessible online sources about actual usage. There are some timeline differences between the English and French pages. But one can certainly say here is that by 1762 the short scale was the official definition in France.^[1] Trigenibinion (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th is indeed the first edition of that dictionary where the word appears. It was first published in 1694. The 9th edition is not finished.^[2] Trigenibinion (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 4e, 5e, 6e et 8e éditions (1762, 1798, 1835, 1932-35) ; Émile Littré, Dictionnaire de la langue française (1972-77) : billion, milliard.
^ https://www.dictionnaire-academie.fr/

I am looking at these sources and it appears to me that a "billion" was defined as 1,000 million by the Dictionary of the French language at the time. Do we really need to clarify it beyond that? We can just write that first sentence as American English adopted the short scale definition from the French in the 19th century (when a "billion" was defined as a thousand million by the Dictionary of the French language). Ultimately we are not really interested in usage, but rather the origin of two separate definitions. Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "as it was defined in the dictionary at the time". But it was imported to America before the 19th century, maybe before it appeared in the French dictionary. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe something like this: American English adopted the short scale definition from the French (at the time a "billion" was defined as a thousand million by the Dictionary of the French language). Betty Logan (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first American book using the short scale was published in 1729, that is before it was adopted by the French dictionary. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So how exactly do you want this to be clarified? The French Dictionary defined "billion" using the short scale from the mid-18th century, so the definition must have been established prior to that. You say that the first American book to use the short scale was published in 1729. So that would indicate that the American billion was adopted at a similar time to when the short scale was becoming established in France. Ultimately anything we state has to be sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was indeed "some of whom". Here is the source: Isaac Greenwood. Trigenibinion (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milliard common in other European languages

The article states that "Milliard, another term for one thousand million, is extremely rare in English, but words similar to it are very common in other European languages." and then goes on to list several European languages, including Portuguese, and the apparent sources are two pages in Catalan, a very specific language that has many French words.

In Portuguese there isn't the equivalent to "milliard", we use only "milhares" for "thousands", "milhões" for "millions" and "biliões" (or "bilhões", mostly in Brazilian Portuguese) for "billions", with the meaning of a million millions.

To me, it looks like whoever wrote that sentence didn't have a real source for it and I suppose that information is also wrong for other languages listed.

In fact, during the 9th (1948) meeting of the General Conference on Weights and Measures, it was unanimously decided to propose the long scale for all European countries^[1]. Portugal was one of the countries that followed the proposal and turned it into a national standard, NP 18:2006 ^[2].ArMaP (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

What does it mean that Catalan is "a very specific language that has many French words"? There is not French words in Catalan, there is only Catalan words. Another thing is that many words come from French, Spanish, Italian, or other latin languages. But this happens with Spanish, French, etc, they also have words that come from Catalan. And from Italian, and From french, etc., because all latin languages have most of their vocabulary originated from the original latin language.

Catalan is a language, like is Portuguese, Franch, or Italian. Many people believe that Catalan is a mix of languages, but this is due to ignorance.37.173.0.68 (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thus for these languages billion is a thousand times larger than the modern English billion This wording is very awkward as the word billion is already the English form of the equivalent words, e.g. in Hungarian it is not "billion" but billió. Hhgygy (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are not two current definitions to the word in English

There are sources in the lead sentence of the article that correctly assert that there is only one definition of the word "billion" in English. No sources have been provided by the person who reverted me of anything to the contrary. Red Slash 19:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an English dictionary, it is an encyclopedia written in English. In theory you should be able to have the exact same article written in French or Russian, because an encyclopedia summarises concepts, and globally the concept of a "billion" has two definitions defined on two distinct scales. There are plenty of countries where words cognate to a "billion" have the meaning 1 x 10^12. If this were Wiktionary I would agree with you: if you were defining word use in the English language then you would expect it to reflect current/popular usage. You clearly accept this point because in your edit you start the lead "In the English language...". But we are not defining a word, we are defining a concept. The concept of the billion on the long scale has widespread use across the world, possibly more so than the short scale. If Wikipedia is to adopt a WP:WORLDVIEW then it shouldn't be reducing concepts to how they are are only understood in English speaking countries. Approximately 40% of the English Wikipedia's readership is located in countries where English is a second-language. A global readership should be able to access the information and the two definitions are much clearer in the long-standing bullet-point format. Betty Logan (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is... emphatically not true. WP:USEENGLISH is a good resource. And no, we are not defining a concept at this page - 1,000,000,000 is the page that defines the concept. This is the rare article that is actually about the word. Red Slash 15:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That link is for naming conventions, and 1,000,000,000 defines 1,000,000,000 on one particular scale. There is WP:NOCONSENSUS to restructure the article so I am returning it to the WP:STATUSQUO. Betty Logan (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the structure of the Billion article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is general support for Option 1 as best explaining the encyclopedic topic of "billion" (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a dispute about how this article should be structured. Here are the two competing options:

Version 1, using bullet points to treat the definition on the two number scales equally and clearly.
Version 2, prioritising the modern-day definition in English speaking countries.

Other relevant considerations:

#No, there are not two current definitions to the word in English – the discussion above that led to this RFC
The Trillion article
Names of large numbers article

Betty Logan (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Version 1 (bullet point structure) While I fully accept the point that the long-scale usage is mostly historic in English-speaking countries (in an official capacity, less so among generations who left school before the 1970s), the simple fact is that globally the long-scale enjoys wide-spread usage. The concept of a "billion" has two definitions worldwide: as you can see at Long and short scale#Current usage there are many countries where a "billion" (or a word cognate to it) denotes 1 x 10^12. If Wikipedia were a dictionary then obviously the definition should reflect modern English-language usage. However, an encyclopedia should be concerned more with concepts, rather than etymology i.e. I think it is desirable for this article to be written in such a way that it would be a completely functional article if it were translated into French, for example. Another consideration is that approximately 40% of the readership for the English Wikipedia lies beyond native English speaking countries, and I don't think it is particularly helpful to readers by obfuscating the reality that a "billion" has two meanings. I think Version 1, with the bullet points, is more in the spirit of WP:WORLDVIEW. Betty Logan (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Summoned by a bot; cards on the table, I'm a BrEnglish speaker, and (amongst other things) a maths educator (to small people). I've never come across any modern piece of writing in BrEng that uses billion in the sense of a million millions, and I've never heard anyone use it in that sense in conversation. Since I was a child in the 1980s, it was just one of those interesting factoids you pick up: it's legal to shoot a Welshman with a bow and arrow in Chester (obviously the isn't really the case); Berwick-upon-Tweed is still technically at war with Russia (except it isn't); a British billion is a million millions (except that nobody uses it in that sense). I'm sure there's some historical reality behind this little factoid, but in my personal experience the thousand millions is exclusively what British people mean when they say/write a billion, and it has been for at least forty years. So, while I think it's reasonable to include a mention of the historical British meaning, it shouldn't be front-and-centre in the lead. (All of the above is based on the aggregate of my experience as a BrEng speaker - I am not referring to or citing any specific sources to back it up, so the closer should give it whatever weight they see fit.) Girth Summit _(blether) 19:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having typed all that, re-reading the options and taking Betty Logan's thoughts into consideration, I think that Version 1 actually does quite a good job of getting that across. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Version 1 The definitions are usually taken by Google and other services. It would be better to present a modern-day definition there. --Martin Tauchman (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Version 2. People come to Wikipedia to learn. In the English language, the word "billion" only means one thing: 1,000,000,000. Someone who thinks that it doesn't only mean 1,000,000,000 should be able to come to our article and be immediately enlightened that it means only 1,000,000,000. As of paragraph two, both versions are essentially the same; we are only dealing with the first impression granted to readers. Go to any other article on a word, and it will start with what the word means: see data (word), Bespoke, Irregardless, Lady... etc. By setting up the bullet points, we are presenting a sort of false dichotomy where it appears that both are valid. (I do want to congratulate Betty Logan on an extraordinarily well put-together RFC!) Red Slash 00:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Betty Logan (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Version 1. We don't give WP:UNDUE weight to perspectives from the English-speaking world; we consider them all equally. In this case, that means we should give the different definitions of "Billion" equal prominence. BilledMammal (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This I don't understand. This article is about a word in English! How are we going to take the perspective of other language speakers for what an English-language word means? Red Slash 19:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Version 2 - It's funny that other editors are defending the long scale use through the lens of non-English natives, but as such a person I only encountered the concept in English texts and always assumed it was purely used in Britain. Is it one of those situation where everyone thinks others use it, but in fact nobody really does? In any case, the thousand million definition is by far the most used one in international dealings such as finance and computing, so I think should be prioritized in the first sentence, with the long billion mentioned a bit later in the lede. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PraiseVivec: I do not understand the first part of your comment. Which concept did you only encounter in English texts? The usage of 'billion' to mean a million million? If so, I can't understand what you mean, because a billion means a million million in numerous parts of the world, including my country (Portugal) and basically all of continental Europe. LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LongLivePortugal: That is exactly what I was saying. A million millions is one of the definitions for the word "bilion" in Romanian , which is almost never used, while the word "miliard" is used for the thousand million and is usually translated to "billion". The first time I encountered the concept of a billion having more than one definition was in English. Hope that clears it up. Also, cool to know that Portuguese uses the second definition, that's a welcome concrete example, until now I just heard people say "many countries" use it without being specific. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PraiseVivec: So, if I understood correctly: in Romanian, 'billion' can mean both things, but the long scale (a billion = a million million) is almost never used, and the short scale (a billion = a thousand million) is used instead? If so, then Romania uses the short scale, like Britain and the US. But Portugal (and all Portuguese-speaking countries except Brazil) uses the long scale, as well as Spain, France, Germany, and so on... Unfortunately, many people don't know this distinction; sometimes I find mistranslated texts where the English 'billion' was translated into Portuguese bilião, when it should have been mil milhões ('a thousand million'). Therefore, I believe that, for non-native English speakers, Version 1 of this page is much more helpful, because it immediately shows them that there are two possible definitions and prompts them to check which one applies in their country, so that they make no mistake. Do you understand what I mean? LongLivePortugal (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Version 1 — Granted, it is true that, in English, ever since Britain officially adopted the short scale, the English word billion has come to mean exclusively 'a thousand million'. However, almost everywhere else in the world, it means 'a million million'. Before deciding, we must remember two things: 1) many people, even though they are not native English speakers, use the English-language Wikipedia (because it tends to have much more information than any other); and 2) many people simply do not know that this distinction between the long and the short scales exists. You can begin to see the problem: if Version 2 is chosen, anyone (from any country) who isn't sure whether a billion means a thousand million or a million million, and who comes to Wikipedia to find out quickly and who only reads the first sentence because it is enough, will miss the full explanation and think that a billion means a thousand million everywhere in every language, which is wrong and may lead the person to write incorrectly if, for instance, the person looked for this information here to write something in a language other than English. This is the undesirable outcome about which I am concerned. Only Version 1 ensures the reader will always obtain the full picture and find the truth and correctly use the word, whatever his native language and country of origin. However, for those of you who believe that the article's text should say more clearly that there is only one definition in English, I accept a variant of Version 1 which, in the first line, after "two distinct definitions", would add "(although only the first one is used in modern English)" before the colon. But the bullet point structure must be kept. LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be completely fine with the proposed amendment. I certainly don't oppose any suggestion that would add clarity. Betty Logan (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

template linking "billion" to long and short scale values

I've programmed up a pretty simple template for automatically linking "billion" to the articles on the appropriate long and short scale articles. Just use {{billion}} to link to the English standard short scale {{billion}}. Use {{billion|long=yes}} to link to the long scale {{billion}}. You can also include more precise language with {{billion|long=short}} still linking to the short scale, but with a parenthetical {{billion}}. Van Isaac, MPLL^cont_WpWS 06:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Why does the lede say that billion is still occasionally used in Britain to refer to the number 1,000,000,000,000? It is most definitely never used that way any more. It was used that way in the past, that is true, but nowadays 100% of the times it refers to the short billion. Cambridge dictionary mentions that use as obsolete ([1]). It is quite telling the only reference provided for the current use of the long billion in Britain is an American dictionary. I am aware of the RfC before, but the current lede is extremely misleading and is based on a single source, so I think it should be changed. Vpab15 (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The OED defines it in the following way:

1.a.

1611–

A million million, 1,000,000,000,000, or 10^12. Cf. trillion n. A.2b.

This sense was formerly standard in British English but is now largely superseded by sense A.1b."

1.b.

1811–

Originally North American. A thousand million, 1,000,000,000, or 10^9.

Now the usual sense.

I would hazard a guess that you are either under the age of 30, or not British. Wikipedia is accurate in the way it describes modern British usage, and is consistent with the Oxford English Dictionary. There is a generational difference in its usage. If anything, I would argue that the OED plays down long-scale usage in the UK—for many people born before the 1970s, the long-scale definition is still prevalent. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OED clearly states there is just one definition in use currently. Unless there are reliable sources using the old definition (which I really doubt), it is WP:UNDUE to have an obsolete definition in the lede. Vpab15 (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The OED makes it clear there are two definitions in British English (hence why there are two definitions in the OED), albeit one of the definitions being more dominant than the other. Wikipedia's summary of modern usage is backed up by two dictionary definitions. Two sources have been provided using the older definition, so I do not really understand your request. Perhaps you should provide a source that states the older definition no longer enjoys any usage at all, if that is what you want the article to say. Betty Logan (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide a link to Cambridge dictionary. It clearly states that the long-scale billion is "old-fashioned" and "This number is now called a trillion". A single source from an American dictionary is insufficient to claim current use of the long-scale billion in the UK. Unless there are sources that also use (rather than just define) the long-scale billion, that definition doesn't belong in the lede. Vpab15 (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge definition is consistent with how the position is summarised here. It does not say the older sense of the word has fallen completely out of use. Merriam and the OED also back up the claim that the long-scale definition still enjoys occasional usage. This report to parliament in 2009 also supports the notion that the long-scale definition is still in use, albeit to a lesser extent than the modern short-scale version. It's true that current usage in the media, technical writing and Government reports will almost certainly employ the short-scale version but it's simply not the case that the term is understood only to have one meaning. All of this is adequately captured in this article. The position that you want this article to adopt—that the term only has a single meaning in Britain today—is not supported by any of the sources. Betty Logan (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The parliament report quotes the OED from 1989, 35 years ago. Today in the UK billion only means one thing. Unless there is a more recent source (say, last 15 years) that uses the long-scale billion, the mention of its current use needs to be removed per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The WP:BURDEN to provide reliable sources is with the editor wanting to keep the content. "Billion" is very commonly used in media and science and technology. If it the long-scale billion is still in use in the UK, it shouldn't be hard to provide reliable sources that still use it. Vpab15 (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not require editors to provide primary source evidence, it has a preference for secondary sources, which have been provided. Multiple reliable sources have stated that the long-scale meaning is still in use, albeit not to the extent the short-scale use is used—and this is adequately encapsulated by this article. Technical and official writing from recent years should use the short-scale definition as that is recommended usage now, but that does not account for a societal understanding of the term, which has been summed up by various dictionaries. Find a source that states that the short-scale definition is the only one in use today in modern Britain and we can factor that into the article. Without that you are venturing into WP:DEADHORSE territory. Betty Logan (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milliard language list

Both Croatian and Serbo-Croatian were listed as among the languages that use the term Milliard. Seems redundant to list both. I deleted Croatian and kept Serbo-Croatian for the sake of brevity and because Serbo-Croatian is called a language in its Wikipedia article. Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are listed as variety languages. Alternatively, we could remove Serbo-Croatian and list each of the four variety languages separately. For the sake of brevity, I think listing Serbo-Croatian alone is best, but wanted to see if others had different thoughts. 24.192.206.225 (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 4e, 5e, 6e et 8e éditions (1762, 1798, 1835, 1932-35) ; Émile Littré, Dictionnaire de la langue française (1972-77) : billion, milliard.

[2] ttps://www.dictionnaire-academie.fr/

[3] ttps://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/17314988/CGPM9.pdf/77fe0fa9-bda8-1620-831e-33646e446cd8

[4] ttps://lojanormas.ipq.pt/product/np-18-2006/

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]