Jump to content

Talk:Kilometres per hour/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Serial comma

See also: User talk:Dsimic § Kilometres per hour

I'd like to hear feedback from more editors, regarding this revert: is

In Australian, South African, New Zealand, and North American slang and military usage, km/h is commonly pronounced, and sometimes even written, as klicks or kays (Ks), although these may also be used to refer to kilometres.

more readable than

In Australian, South African, New Zealand and North American slang and military usage, km/h is commonly pronounced, and sometimes even written, as klicks or kays (Ks), although these may also be used to refer to kilometres.

or not? To me, that additional comma makes it more readable by distinguishing what belongs to the list. Should we follow MOS:SERIAL in this case, or try to make it more readable? Furthermore, I'd take it even further by writing the sentence like this:

In Australian, South African, New Zealand, and North American slang and military usage, km/h is commonly pronounced and sometimes even written as klicks or kays (Ks), although these may also be used to refer to kilometres.

Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A list contained in a another list should never use a serial comma, whereas the outer conjunction should. Using parentheses to illustrate the concept:
In (Australian, South African, New Zealand, and (North American slang and military usage))
In (Australian, South African, New Zealand and North American) (slang and military usage)
In ((Australian, South African New Zealand and North American slang), and military usage)
The first is not even grammatically sensible, and I think that the second is the intended meaning. I would also suggest removing the parenthetical clause "and sometimes even written" altogether as adding very little but complicating the sentence unduly. —Quondum 01:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure thing, that comma changes the meaning, but I'd say that "in (Australian, South African, New Zealand, and (North American slang and military usage))" is the intended meaning; "Australian, South African, New Zealand" should refer to languages. Though, if "in (Australian, South African, New Zealand and North American) (slang and military usage)" is the intended meaning, the additional comma is surely redundant. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I missed the possibility that the first string could be interpreted as nouns rather than as adjectives. But South African is most certainly not the name of a language (I should know: I hail from there; you'd have to refer to South African English or to Afrikaans, two of the languages spoken there), and a similar observation applies to New Zealand. Australian as the name of a language is more understandable, but still badly pushing it in an encyclopaedic context. Also, South African slang does make sense: the terms kays and klicks are slang and by no means mainstream English in all cases. —Quondum 04:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
You're right, those aren't that great when referring to particular languages. If you agree, it might be the best to have a look into provided and other references, as we anyway need to have everything backed by them. When looking at the currently provided one, we're pretty much not well covered – it says only that a klick is one kilometer, "originally used amongst American servicemen during the Vietnam War", and that in Australia it serves for km/h as well. What would be our chances for more references – then we'll also be able to (perhaps) reword the sentence a bit? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Quondum that the second meaning is the intended one. Essentially there are two adjacent lists — "Australian, South African, New Zealand and North American" and "slang and military usage" — and neither requires a serial comma. So yes, we should follow MOS:SERIAL. Indrek (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
We should find more references in the first place, as the currently provided one doesn't cover even 30% of the whole sentence. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough.
I combed through the article's edit history to see the evolution of the sentence in question:
  • original wording: "It is often spoken as clicks in slang usage." [1] (2004-12-28)
  • changed to "klicks", "sometimes written" added in [2] (2005-01-16)
  • "kays" added in [3] (2005-01-30)
  • wording changed, "North American slang and military usage" added in [4] (2007-04-05)
  • "Australian" added in [5] (2010-06-01)
  • source added in [6] (2012-07-13), and added again without the "dating from the Vietnam War" part in [7] (2012-07-17) following some dispute-related reverts
  • "South African" added in [8] (2013-03-14)
  • "New Zealand" added in [9] (2014-10-30)
Based on Dsimic's comment above about the provided source (which I cannot verify myself as oed.com seems to require a subscription for access, at least for that particular entry), it seems that usage of "klick" for km/h in South Africa, New Zealand and the US military is currently unsourced. If no references can be found for those, they should be removed, leaving only Australian slang.
While we're at it, I think the remark "although these may also be used to refer to kilometres" should be removed, as that usage of "klick" is already covered (and sourced) in kilometre. Indeed, I suspect some of the unsourced usages were added purely because of this remark and don't actually apply to km/h.
Indrek (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The OED seems to provide initial access without subscription to the entry; erasing cookies from that site might help. The relevant part of the OED entry reads: "A kilometre. Also pl. (Austral.), ellipt. for ‘kilometres per hour’. In Australia usu. spelt click." This confirms Indrek's assessment, and even there it is only a derivative of the primary slang use to mean kilometre. I would suggest that this is not sufficiently notable to retain. Delete the entire statement? —Quondum 17:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleting cookies worked, thanks! Reading through the entry, I would agree that Australian usage of "klick"/"click" for km/h does not seem to meet notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Deleting the entire statement seems appropriate if no sources can be found for the other usages. Indrek (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Indrek, for providing a summary of the related edit history! It just shows that the sentence became what it is through something that might be called "drive-by editing", instead of by relying on sources. Went ahead and trimmed down the sentence to what the reference provides – IMHO, it doesn't hurt to have that as part of the article. Also, I've tried to find other sources describing the use of clicks or klicks for km/h, but that doesn't seem to be well covered. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Personally I'd lean towards removing the entire statement, as suggested above, but this is fine also. I guess that wraps this up, then? Indrek (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Ditto from me, but I have no problem with letting it languish awhile as is, and to see whether the notability issue of the remaining statement (which is not really related to the initial problem that triggered this) results in other reactions. I think this has been a definite improvement. —Quondum 23:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You're right that what's left pretty much borders with being notable enough, especially because only one reference seems to exist, but let's see whether other editors will provide more feedback at some point in time. I also agree that this improved the article, and the whole thing started with a comma. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
That is the nature of this beast. Any activity by one editor focuses the attention of others on that spot, resulting in other issues being noticed. For example, I notice that I quite often make edits close to the edits of others when I review their edits. —Quondum 00:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Same thing here. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
And here :) Indrek (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kilometres per hour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done, all fine. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kilometres per hour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kilometres per hour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kilometres_per_hour/Archive_3&oldid=1126381145"