This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
@Dondervogel 2: (who previously edited here as Thunderbird2 (talk·contribs)) doesn't like WP:COMPUNITS, specifically the requirements around not using IEC units except under very specific circumstances. He'd like to change it. As I'm very much opposed to using IEC units as they are very rarely used in anything with widespread use (most of our sources use classic metric terms like KB, MB, GB, not KiB, MiB, and GiB), I'll leave it to them to fill in the reasoning for using these archaic terms that somehow overrides WP:NOR and WP:VNT. —Locke Cole • t • c16:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@Headbomb: I debated mass-pinging the editors involved in the prior big discussion (which was apparently 10+ years ago) but didn't want to get people too ticked off. The problem is, Dondervogel 2 (and the other two editors I ping'd) are reverting changes to articles to use the metric (KB, MB, GB) terms in favor of keeping them using the IEC terms (KiB, MiB, GiB). So either we need to discuss this again, or this needs to go to WP:AN/I because a local consensus of editors should not be overruling the guidelines in the MoS. Otherwise why have these guidelines if they can just make small battles over years and slowly force the articles to IEC terms? —Locke Cole • t • c19:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprise of the aggressive tone seen in the comments here. We reverted the undiscussed changes to SDRAM-related articles where KiB etc are desired and required. Locke Cole did not even try to enter a discussion but simply continued to revert. We did start a discussion at Talk:Synchronous_dynamic_random-access_memory#Disputed_edits but all he did was simply closing it off. We do not intent to change Mosnum, you just have to accept there are areas where KiB etc has more value than KB etc.--Denniss (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
It gets annoying reliving Groundhog Day moments here because an editor refuses to discuss this on the appropriate forum (in this case, here) because they know the outcome here will likely not be to their liking. See Talk:ThinkStation#COMPUNITS for another discussion this editor tried to force on a far-away article page debating this guideline. WP:COMPUNITS is also explicit on where and when IEC units are appropriate, and the articles I've been reverted on are not listed as potential exceptions. Further, with the IEC units, the articles are now engaged in original research, giving undue weight to a unit of measure that almost nobody uses (ESPECIALLY for memory-related articles, as JEDEC standards almost exclusively used KB, MB, GB). The current forked conversation (which I also closed and pointed here) is from just the past day, over here.
(edited to add) Dondervogel 2 has also tried, repeatedly, to have this discussion on other article talk pages (besides the two others linked above):
In my day job I program embedded devices. Which means I spend a lot of time in the manufacturer's data sheets. I can't remember the last time I saw a MiB, KiB, etc in an official datasheet. Nor do I find them on Stack Overflow, or programming blogs or any other online resource when searching for answers for particularly hard problems. In fact, the only times I can remember is here on WP in talk page discussions arguing about whether to use them. It simply isn't used in the industry to any great extent. Stepho talk22:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I see no need for discussion here because I am not suggesting a change to MOSNUM. Nevertheless, if there is a consensus to hold the discussion here, so be it. As Denniss has already pointed out, the discussion thus started is unnecessarily hostile, so I start by reminding participants of WP:CIVIL. My purpose is to improve individual articles by implementing the MOS as it presently stands. Improvements to individual articles are best dealt case by case so let’s start with SDRAM. At that article an edit war has ensued, and I tried to move the discussion to its Talk page. The issue is how to remove the ambiguity introduced by this edit (and subsequent reverts) by Locke Cole. I started a discussion on the talk page. That discussion was closed by Locke Cole, so I have transferred that thread to here (below). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Your concern is with the application of WP:COMPUNITS. You disagree with how it has been applied and believe my edits to be in error. The "hostility" you perceive is well-deserved because you have repeatedly started whack-a-mole discussions on various talk pages (for virtually identical issues) instead of coming here where the nexus of your concerns can be realistically addressed. As to Denniss (talk·contribs), this edit where he referred to what I said as "blah blah" pretty much takes the wind out of any feigned victimhood he tries to present here. WP:CIVIL is a two-way street. —Locke Cole • t • c15:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
For a (hopefully) MOSNUM-conform prefix disambiguation I have created a new template, {{binpre}}. The template should enable quick and uniform footnotes when binary prefixes are (and need to be) used. Hope that helps. --Zac67 (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@Zac67: We've had {{BDprefix}} for some time, which I've been trying to use where appropriate. When coupled with {{efn}} and {{notelist}} it provides a clean explanation that usually integrates well with other article content like references and other notes. —Locke Cole • t • c14:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
{{binpre}} produces a numbered reference, which isn't appropriate. If it is to be used, it should produce a lettered footnote. NebY (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@Compvis, Jc3s5h, Cybercobra, Woodstone, Greg L, Art LaPella, Seraphimblade, MJCdetroit, Pyrotec, Theaveng, and Cyde: ping'ing editors from the prior discussions since this has apparently turned into a larger discussion. Dondervogel 2 is attempting to use IEC units as disambiguation in articles despite longstanding recommendations being available here at WP:COMPUNITS. My reading is that there are very few exceptions for using IEC, and most are around whether the majority of sources use them or not, and whether or not it's possible to use one of the other methods to disambiguate the terms. Additional input would be appreciated. —Locke Cole • t • c18:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
In fact, WP:COMPUNITS absolutely allows using IEC prefixes "in articles in which both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary, or in which converting all quantities to one or the other type would be misleading or lose necessary precision, or declaring the actual meaning of a unit on each use would be impractical." In SDRAM], M and G are used with binary meaning for memory capacities, and with their standard SI meaning for data rates and frequences. In my mind, the currently used footnotes are impractical, especially when both meanings are used very closely together. Locke Cole repetitively reverting those disambiguations is in violation of those terms. I do not request the use of IEC prefixes in any other cases (storage sizes and whatnot) but the ones expressly designated in WP:COMPUNITS. --Zac67 (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
You (and others) are taking far too much liberty with that sentence from COMPUNITS. My reading of that is that the sources still need to be using those terms for it to be applicable, but so far as I've seen no source uses gibit. WP:V and WP:NOR are policy for a reason. —Locke Cole • t • c14:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Dondervogel 2: I'm not sure if it was obvious, but this discussion is largely over. COMPUNITS is not changing, and we're not going to be using IEC units in articles. If you persist in attempting to add them in to articles, you may be blocked for disruption as there is clearly no consensus to use IEC in articles, and simply arguing at length until your opponents tire and go away is not "consensus" as you seem to think. I'm going to revert your additions to the various Apple articles. If you re-add them, then the next step will be a visit to WP:AN/I. Stop now. —Locke Cole • t • c19:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I am alarmed by this profusion of comments that are full of "you this", "you that". I think we all know where such comments tend to come from, and where they tend to go to. Such exchanges inevitably produce more heat than light. Moreover, threatening people for valuing disambiguation is not a good look, and reverting people's edits can also be considered disruptive. The fact that plenty of people see the value in IEC prefixes is perhaps a good indication that the stance you've taken here is not the only defensible position. Moreover, as I pointed out below, no less an authority than the BIPM (i.e. the final global authority on the use of units of measurement) has explicitly endorsed the use of IEC prefixes. Therefore I'd say, if anything is incompatible with NPOV, it is treating IEC like it is solely the preserve of cranks (unless we're going to argue that world-leading professional metrologists are POV-pushing crackpots?). Archon 2488 (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
You and I must be reading very different conversations below... and my good faith expired fully after thisexchange (you'll notice after that exchange and the replies that followed I stopped participating here as it became clear Dondervogel simply refuses to "get it"). As to your IEC comments, given the lack of media-at-large and scholarly sources below, I'd argue it gives cranks a bad name to bring them in to this... we don't do things just because a standards organization signs off on it, we do things because of what our sources say. And our sources don't use IEC (see User:Locke Cole/IEC units are bad, or #IEC usage in print media and #IEC units in scholarly writings below (the material below is mostly duplicated in my userspace)). It's worth mentioning that this dead horse has been getting beaten since 2010 (and before). And it appears that Dondervogel's reaction to not successfully making the case for IEC units back in those old discussions is to play a protracted edit war out in article-space, slowly adding them in to articles and hoping nobody notices. That is the definition of disruption. I'm sorry you don't see it. 🤷♂️ —Locke Cole • t • c16:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I don’t have time to dwell on your hostile editing and continual harassment. You keep repeating that you see no reason to change MOSNUM, but in this entire thread I’ve not once proposed a change to mosnum. Instead my purpose is to improve articles, and I have consistently focused on the issues. WP is based on consensus and consensus is not achieved by one editor unilaterally declaring the discussion is over. And certainly not while there are many articles to improve. If you are here to improve WP then cut the crap and focus on improving articles.
You have taken issue with some of my edits to selected iPad and iPod articles, so let’s start there. On 30 May I made a reasoned proposal to improve selected iPad and iPod articles, by clarifying how much disk space is available. After 10 days no one had responded so I boldly implemented the change and reported back at mosnum. Now you have reverted my changes without discussion. I shall respond to those reverts at the place I made the proposal.
@Dondervogel 2: from WP:NOTSILENCE: Withdrawing from communication with a tendentious or quarrelsome editor does not give that editor consent to do what they like.
You said: I’ve not once proposed a change to mosnum: yes, you've just wanted to re-litigate IEC prefixes in each and every instance despite the guideline clearly saying they are "not to be used". But sure, you're not trying to change the MOS, you're just trying to ignore it and run roughshod over existing consensus.
I'm done here. Other editors also appear to be done here (well, there's one editor who joined recently, but this has been going on for nearly two months now and for the past month it's been mostly you occasionally replying that keeps the topic from being auto-archived). There is no consensus to change MOSNUM to allow for the types of edits you seem bound and determined to make. Such consensus is unlikely to come about just because you keep forcing the issue. Engaging in tendeditous editing will not be tolerated.
It's clear to me that you intend to try and make us play whack-a-mole with you on each and every instance. If you continue this thread, you can just automatically assume whatever you're proposing, if it involves using IEC prefixes in article-space (directly or indirectly), I oppose. Also, consider this: Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. COMPUNITS is the existing global consensus, stop proposing edits that run counter to it. —Locke Cole • t • c20:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: In fact, there's no change necessary in WP:MOSNUM#Quantities of bytes and bits as it already allows using IEC prefixes in fringe cases – e.g. when both decimal and binary prefixes are mixed in an article. In case you cannot be bothered to turn the page (emphasis mine):
The IEC prefixes kibi- (symbol Ki), mebi- (Mi), gibi- (Gi), etc., are generally not to be used except [...] in articles in which both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary, or in which converting all quantities to one or the other type would be misleading or lose necessary precision, or declaring the actual meaning of a unit on each use would be impractical.
The articles in question do use mixed prefixes and using inflationary footnotes is impractical, IMHO (see example). Nonetheless, you keep reverting, and your way of disrupting discussion and replying to arguments at least borders on harassment to me. --Zac67 (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
As to your misinterpreted quote. You guys love ignoring the bits about when the majority of cited sources on the article topic use IEC prefixes;, or let's ignore that (you guys clearly are), if you really believe the "or" gives you carte blanche to override policies like WP:V and WP:NOR from a guideline (hint: MOS does not have the ability to circumvent WP:V and WP:NOR; you'd still need sources that use IEC prefixes). And of course you also completely ignore or declaring the actual meaning of a unit on each use would be impractical.. it would not be impracticle to have a footnote with relevent values to inform the reader of the difference using simple, easy to use language like "1 GB = 1 billion bytes" (or use one of the examples for disambiguating provided that do not involve using IEC). I hope using logic and reason here isn't some weird backhanded harassment for you, I wouldn't want you to feel harassed. If I need to do something to make this reply less harassing, please let me know. Maybe I can just let your reply sit for a month and then I'll spontaneously reply to it. That appears to be what passes for perfectly acceptable behavior for you. —Locke Cole • t • c17:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: There is no WP:OR or WP:V involved when using IEC prefixes (for practical reasons). We've established that the are used in scientific publications, despite your claim that nobody uses them (note that WP:RS doesn't require scientific sources). Then you kept arguing that the majority of sources needed to use IEC prefixes before we could use them – that's not required anywhere but by you. Also, it's just one exception for their use, disambiguation is another. I'm solely trying to use them for disambiguation as WP:MOSNUM#Quantities of bytes and bits suggests – in articles where both variants are reasonable and to simplify disambiguation. No 'carte blanche' required. I'm simply asking to use those prefixes as currently warranted by WP:MOSNUM. Your reverts and edit warring are disruptive. --Zac67 (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Zac67: Not going in circles with you. Comptency is required, and clearly you are not competent when it comes to interpreting WP:COMPUNITS. Repeatedly starting forest fires to push IEC on Wikipedia, repeatedly ignoring conversations because you don't like where they're going (but then replying weeks later to keep the threads from being archived) are FAR MORE disruptive than anything I've done (no matter how much you try and puff it up to be bigger than it is; sort of like IEC units, manufacturers and reliable sources never use them, but some kids in college (at a rate of less than 2%) and you guys think you've hit a gold mine for IEC sourcing)... —Locke Cole • t • c20:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: I'm incompetent of reading. "replying week later to keep the thread from being archived" when you've just posted yourself. That's what I meant with "at least bordering on harrassment" – thanks for making my point. Apparently, you can't be bothered with facts or policy. The [...] never use them has been disproven, no need to reiterate. You demand scientific sources, and when they're provided they're from "some kids in college" (have you actually verified that, or is it some wild allegation?). And I have no idea what you're referring to with the gold mine stuff. Fact is, your arguments have been disproven. WP:COMPUNITS is clear enough, without much room for interpretation, but you still reiterate and insist that you can revert edits in compliance with our policies. Who's the die-hard here? --Zac67 (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Zac67: I've literally no idea how what you misquoted would be "harassment". So whatever point you made, congratulations, I'm sure you're very pleased with yourself. Apparently, you can't be bothered with facts or policy Really? You suppose the weeks of conversation below were just imaginary? I mean you didn't respond to the print media sourcing, or to the scholarly works commentary, so maybe you just ignore things you don't like? Just because you want to pretend the sky is green doesn't mean I have to play along. As to "facts" and "policy", sure, here you go:
Facts: IEC units are used in less than 2% of scholarly works. IEC units are used in less than 1/10 of 1% of print media. IEC units are not used by major manufacturers of consumer electronics. IEC units are not used by the vast majority of major software vendors (Apple, Microsoft, etc).
Policy:WP:V (using IEC at all, given the generally non-existent sources would be a violation), WP:NOR (as we lack sources, let alone credible reliable sources, using them would be original research), WP:NPOV (particularly WP:UNDUE; presenting IEC units alongside the very common and widely used traditional units would be giving them undue weight to our readers and confusing them with terms nobody else uses).
The [...] never use them has been disproven... oh has it? Care to show me where? You demand scientific sources, ... I did no such thing. In fact, I have no idea why Dondervogel presented scholarly papers, my only theory is that it has something to do with their nearly religious maintenance of User:Thunderbird2/The case against deprecation of IEC prefixes(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) where they have apparently made it their mission to cling to the notion that usage in Google Scholar visible papers is somehow relevant (I actually don't think they are, I think wider use in the media (print/web/television) is more relevant, as is usage by manufacturers and software companies). Who's the die-hard here? Uh... is that rhetorical? I've only been involved in this discussion for a few months. Some of you people have been at this for over a fucking decade and won't give up. So... [w]ho's the die-hard here? is not me. I'm just not afraid to call out bullshit. :D I hate to keep saying it, but WP:CIR is still looking more and more relevant. —Locke Cole • t • c06:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I've already weighed in, but I just want to offer my tuppence that it is patently absurd to suggest using a unit defined in a standard is not verifiable. The definition of the unit is trivially verifiable by consulting the standard. Hell, even the smoot is verifiable, because there exist sources that define it. I have no idea what more you expect in terms of verifiability; a unit of measurement is not a proposition that can be true or false (hence it is not even obvious to me what it could mean, conceptually, to "verify" it) – it is a definition. You would "verify" other occurrences of the unit by ascertaining whether they conform to the standard, but unless you are a metrologist, this is unlikely to concern you. Nor is using the definitions of units original research by any useful definition of the term, any more than consulting the BIPM's SI brochure and using the SI metre is "original research". Using a standard is not research, by literally any definition of those words I have encountered in about 15 years of studying and working in high-precision STEM fields. Using a unit is not a POV; only a proposition can be said to come from a POV (this point is much disputed by our resident anti-metric agitators, who seem to think that saying a lake is 12 km long is a potentially unforgivably biased political statement; I take it that the inanity of this is self-evident). If you are stating that a certain object weights 12 kg, that is a simple proposition which can be true or false; I do not see how POV comes into it (because it is apolitical), regardless of how much someone might detest the use of SI units. Same for IEC, indeed. There might be other reasons not to use certain units (e.g. they are silly like smoots, or deprecated like nautical cables), but POV does not come into it. And re CIR, I see no indication that any of the participants in this discussion are incompetent. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The standard exists, the widespread use (which would be another requisite of WP:V) is not. For all intents and purposes the IEC units are largely unused by society at-large (manufacturers, vendors, media (web/print/etc), scholarly works, etc). As to POV, as I explained, WP:UNDUE is specifically the concern there, given the fewer than 1% overall sources that use the IEC terms (especially in historical contexts) and the publics perception overall, it would be unbalanced to provide equal weight/meaning to the IEC terms. We do not allow that as a matter of policy. And trust me, WP:CIR is relevant here. There's a high liklihood that Dunning–Kruger effect is in play here, too. —Locke Cole • t • c17:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
So we're now openly insinuating that the editors who don't agree with this very broad interpretation of verifiability, NPOV, and OR in this context are incompetent, and too stupid and/or uninformed to understand that they are so, by virtue of the DK effect? I basically let this slide before, but it is flatly inappropriate. Even ignoring the snide nastiness of it, since most of us here are (presumably) from a broadly STEM background of one kind or another, this does not seem plausible to me, to put it mildly; actually it seems clearly uncivil and nothing more than a crudely dressed-up personal attack. And I note with interest that you have, in your userspace, an essay outlining why "IEC units are bad" – how's that for a neutral POV?
You've clearly nailed your colours to the mast and it seems from your comments here that you've decided, regardless of circumstances or context, that anyone who suggests using IEC prefixes in any situation is to be treated as a dangerous crank or an incompetent charlatan. Shit, you've pretty much explicitly told us as much yourself; even leaving politeness aside, it's usually considered prudent not to tell people so bluntly what you think about them. For my part, I don't really have much of a horse in this race, as my current personal preference is not to take my sojourns on Wikipedia as a busman's holiday, and hence I quite rarely edit computing-related articles at all. Much less do I advocate which units are used on them – I'm just an observer who occasionally weighs in on MOSNUM when he feels he has something to say. So, in article-space, if an editor believes that either the neater but less common 1 GiB, or the clearer but indisputably uglier standard-form approximation 1.074×109 B, is a more appropriate means for communicating disambiguating information, it's really a matter of indifference to me. The absolute hysteria that greets the former whenever it is mentioned is one of the more perplexing of the enduring historical oddities of MOSNUM. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Archon 2488: I'm starting to think you haven't read much of this thread. So we're now openly insinuating that the editors who don't agree with this very broad interpretation of verifiability ... So my alternative choice is to assume Dondervogel 2 is acting in bad faith, not incompetence. However, according to WP:AGF, I need to assume good faith. So I am. I assume the reason they continue on as they do is because they don't understand what they're talking about. This is a much better assumption than assuming malicious intent. And I note with interest that you have, in your userspace, an essay outlining why "IEC units are bad" – how's that for a neutral POV? Wonderful. Dondervogel 2 also has User:Thunderbird2/The case against deprecation of IEC prefixes, I'm sure this "interests" you as well? Or perhaps not? Also, if you've read my userspace "essay" you'd see it is simply a collection of my arguments from this broader discussion in an easier to digest form.
... regardless of circumstances or context, that anyone who suggests using IEC prefixes in any situation is to be treated as a dangerous crank or an incompetent charlatan. I mean, those are your words. But after two months, and disruptive behavior from Dondervogel 2 (such as starting multiple forked conversations across nearly a dozen pages now, which I've had to corral back here, where they still insist on fragmenting the discussions anyways even though the topic is largely the same). I've engaged them on their "sources", I've provided counterpoints, and as nobody here seems convinced to take this any further, WP:COMPUNITS stands. Nothing is going to change, as I said above, and so the status quo, The IEC prefixeskibi- (symbol Ki), mebi- (Mi), gibi- (Gi), etc., are generally not to be used stands. Now as to your broader attack on MOSNUM in general, knock it off. A manual of style that helps provide a consistent experience for our readers is something the editors of this project have decided they think is valuable. I'm sorry you think we should be carving out exceptions across the project, but that way lies confusion for both our readers and our editors. We have methods of disambiguation provided, and certainly using other methods is not unacceptable (especially if they match what our sources say), however, using IEC units is not one of those options (except in very specific instances).
I sincerely regret not taking this to AN/I immediately as I was told to do at the start of this thread. I regret taking the time to listen to Dondervogel 2, to consider their "sources", to listen to their arguments, and to try and keep an open mind. Clearly I should have addressed the core behavioral problem before letting this go off the rails for two months, and that mistake is on me. Thanks for making it crystal clear to me now. —Locke Cole • t • c03:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Locke Cole:I don't currently have the time to properly respond to your previous reply, but you're still missing the point. You've even quoted WP:COMPUNITS to fit your bias – there's an except in that policy. One exception is reasonable disambiguation. Sources using IEC prefixes are another exception. The MOS does not say "two out of four" or even "three out of four" for these criteria. There's a simple "or". That isn't a "carte blanche" as you call it but rather a call to reasonable use, where IEC prefixes clearly make practical sense. Without advocating them broadly (I'm not too much with @Dondervogel 2: on this). Also, much of your argument is "we've been over this ten years ago" – times change, and there's a growing acceptance of IEC prefixes in the world. That's called progress, albeit slow. Your user-space argument collection linked above shows your level of disinformation and backwardness to me.
The reality is that binary prefixes were only used for memory initially, and that ill-informed software developers began using them for (formatted) storage and especially for file sizes, fixing the users to perceiving them as "computer units", in their own context for those "in the know". That's elitist thinking and even dangerous in its core. Before you ask, no, I don't have a source for that but I've been there and seen that. --Zac67 (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I can assure you I've seen many an argument about IEC on MOSNUM, thanks for your condescension – or am I meant to infer that I am an incompetent Dunning-Krugerite too? Have I risen to the level of my Wikipedia incompetence by having got myself listened to on MOSNUM in the past, and now overstepped my mark by pronouncing on that most contentious of subjects, that Balrog lurking in the depths of MOSNUM history, an ancient evil lying in wait for foolhardy miners to awaken it, the dreaded IEC prefixes? These baiting remarks, followed by non-apologies like "the alternative is to assume bad faith, and I am not allowed to do that", are utterly poisonous, on several levels. And I have seen Dondervogel's essay; my point is that a title such as "the case against deprecating X" at least does not sound as overtly biased and categorically dismissive as "X is bad". It's a much weaker claim – hence much easier to justify – that there might be circumstances in which X could be useful (which I note, as does Zac67 above, that COMPUNITS already says – albeit with heavy caveats, which is the substance of what we are disputing here), than it is to claim that X is the work of the Devil and should never be touched by mortal hands (like, say, Java).
And it does not do one's case any favours to make statements as overtly opinionated as that (before you ask, it's not advisable to go around saying that using IEC is the only acceptable way, either). Fact is, there is probably nobody here who doesn't know by now what your opinion on this subject is. You've made your point. The fact that it's not by any means just Dondervogel (who might well be stepping over the mark in his appetite for IEC) who disagrees with you does suggest that you have slightly missed the points others are making, however, in your evident enthusiasm to banish any trace of these forbidden prefixes from WP. There is no pro-IEC conspiracy on WP, as far as I know.
Now as to your broader attack on MOSNUM in general... I honestly have no idea where you got the idea that I'm attacking MOSNUM, not least because I've participated in many discussions here over the years. I never said anything to the effect of carving out exceptions across the project; closest I came was vaguely implying I'd be OK with the MOS allowing IEC to be used in a wider scope – and since we already recommend glossing less common units, Units unfamiliar to general readers should be presented as a name–symbol pair on first use, linking the unit name, I personally think this is unlikely to be as much of a problem for readers as it is for those editors who stridently object to IEC. But as I said before, this isn't a subject I have a huge personal stake in; I do however take it as a good sign when editors who have been less involved in divisive, recurring MOS disputes such as this one feel comfortable to come forward and offer their input. A large part of the problem with yelling accusations of incompetence, Dunning-Kruger, or bad faith, is not so much that it's abusive to the editor directly targeted, but that others who are observing but not actively participating will feel much less inclined to join such a toxic discussion. Hence you end up with an "evaporative cooling" effect in which all but the most stridently opinionated people have left, or left well enough alone.
Nor do I need to have the purpose of a MoS explained to me like I'm five. It just darkly amuses me that there are certain perennially recurring topics that cannot be discussed without devolving into totallydisproportionateviciousness. And this list of topics has not changed much in the decade or so I've been coming here. Archon 2488 (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Discussion transferred from SDRAM
WP:COMPUNITS is not a licence to introduce ambiguity in any article. I have restored an earlier, stable version of the article so we can discuss the disputed edits since 20 April. Relevant statements include:
Do not assume that the binary or decimal meaning of prefixes will be obvious to everyone.
Disambiguation should be shown in bytes or bits, with clear indication of whether in binary or decimal base. There is no preference in the way to indicate the number of bytes and bits, but the notation style should be consistent within an article.
The IEC prefixes kibi- (symbol Ki), mebi- (Mi), gibi- (Gi), etc., are generally not to be used
The bottom line is that disambiguation is needed. The only question is how. It's hard to satisfy all three requirements, suggesting WP:IAR as the only practical guideline, and disambiguation using the most practical method to hand. What do others think? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Agree – seconding that in full. Ambiguous units don't help anyone and explanations for readers unfamiliar with binary IEC prefixes are available on the linked page. --Zac67 (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
You keep trying to have these whack-a-mole discussions on far-off pages away from WT:MOSNUM. The correct location for this discussion is WT:MOSNUM. Stop starting forest fires and start the discussion where it makes sense. You're not going to change the wording of WP:COMPUNITS here. —Locke Cole • t • c16:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
For purposes of this discussion, I'll stick to megabyte (MB)/mebibyte (MiB) (but the same logic applies to kilobyte (KB)/kibibyte (KiB), gigabyte (GB)/gibibyte (GiB), terabyte (TB)/tebibyte (TiB), etc). Depending on use, megabyte (MB) either means 1,000,000 (one million) bytes, or it means 1,048,576 bytes (notwithstanding some truly odd uses as was done in some floppy disk manufacturing). The 1,000,000 use is typically hard drive/storage manufacturers, while the 1,048,576 usage is typically memory/RAM manufacturers. To this day megabyte (MB, and the similar smaller/larger units) remain in wide use in not just technical documentation but also in the larger media around computing topics as well as in marketing materials and packaging for computing related products. I can walk into a Best Buy, pick up a hard drive box, and see that Western Digital is still proudly selling a 14 terabyte hard disk drive. There will be an asterisk, and on the bottom of the box I'll see a disclaimer noting that "1 gigabyte = 1 billion bytes, 1 terabyte = 1 trillion bytes". If I walk over to the computer memory area, I can look at a package of DDR4 SDRAM and see that it is sold in units of GB (gigabyte). If I walk over to the Apple store, I see that iPad Pro's come in storage options like 64 GB and 256 GB, but a disclaimer is near the bottom of the marketing material stating that "1 GB = 1 billion bytes".
Long story short, IEC unit adoption is effectively non-existent. Other than academic work in some spotty situations, the wider world has largely stuck to the metric units we've had since the early days of computing. Wikipedia reports on the world as it is, not how people want it to be. It's unfortunate that this type of imprecision is baked in to something that demands precision (computing and technology), but for our readers using terms like "gibibyte" and "mebibyte" when they're used to seeing terms like "gigabyte" and "megabyte" simply creates unnecessary confusion. Our best bet is to wikilink these terms as appropriate (so readers can dig deeper if they choose), and perhaps provide linked footnotes that give more precision to potentially problematic instances within our articles (simply using language similar to what Apple and Western Digital uses would at least remove any uncertainty for our readers where that may be an issue; e.g. - "1 MB = one million bytes").
I'm open to additional options, but using KiB, MiB, GiB, etc. is not one of them except as exactly proscribed in WP:COMPUNITS (which only lists four very specific instances where we would use them). —Locke Cole • t • c15:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
You are missing the point. COMPUNITS is very clear on the requirement to disambiguate:
Do not assume that the binary or decimal meaning of prefixes will be obvious to everyone.
Disambiguation should be shown in bytes or bits, with clear indication of whether in binary or decimal base. There is no preference in the way to indicate the number of bytes and bits, but the notation style should be consistent within an article.
You are the editor who with this edit introduced ambiguity in the article (and when your edits were disputed by other editors you chose to revert 3 times [1][2][3] instead of engaging on the talk page), so the onus is on you to remove that ambiguity. How do you propose the article in question might disambiguate between different units sharing the same symbol? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
No, I'm very much aware of your point. But what you've missed entirely is that Wikipedia does not use IEC units except in very specific situations. Full stop. What you've also missed is the answer to your own question from WP:COMPUNITS. Now considering you've been directed there dozens of times so far (and you have to know it exists because you participated in the discussions over ten years ago that lead to WP:COMPUNITS being what it is today), and that you're now pretending that you can't read basic English, I'm beginning to think WP:CIR applies to your situation. From WP:COMPUNITS:
Disambiguation should be shown in bytes or bits, with clear indication of whether in binary or decimal base. There is no preference in the way to indicate the number of bytes and bits, but the notation style should be consistent within an article. Acceptable examples include:
A 64MB (64×10242-byte) video card and a 100GB (100×10003-byte) hard drive
A 64MB (64×220-byte) video card and a 100GB (100×109-byte) hard drive
A 64MB (67,108,864-byte) video card and a 100GB (100,000,000,000-byte) hard drive
I personally think that's overkill, and that simply using language similar to what Western Digital and Apple uses ("1 GB = 1 million bytes" (and so on, as appropriate) as a footnote) would suffice. Wikipedia will not be using KiB, MiB, etc. If you'd like to change that, we're finally on the right page. But given the comments above I think you'll find that discussion won't have the outcome you're looking for. —Locke Cole • t • c19:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I'd like to propose a change. When the last discussion is 10 years past it might be time to reconsider.
In my last workplace, IEC prefixes were mandatory in documentation where binary prefixes made sense (mostly RAM), everything else had to use decimal. In my current job, IEC prefixes are recommended for binary prefixes. JEDEC simply don't use them because they use binary prefixes exclusively and have to need for decimal. However, when you're dealing with various aspects of computers it's impossible to avoid ambiguity when mixing binary and decimal prefixes without pointing out the current meaning all the time. There are
If this policy can't be changed, how are we supposed to refer to a memory with a capacity of 236 bytes?
64 GB (with footnote: G means 10243 here and only here)
68.719.476.736 byte
ca. 68.7 GB
Isn't 64 GiB so much simpler? Please don't get me wrong – using binary prefixes in any way for arbitrary amounts (storage, network, telecommunication) is simply nonsense, even if there's a tradition. I'm just talking about the few cases when binary prefixes make real sense. [perplexed] --Zac67 (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Of the three options you gave, only one is valid, the first one with the footnote. #2 would likely run afoul of WP:POINT (and concerns over WP:V and WP:RS not using that type of language), and #3 would be WP:OR as it's not how our sources use the terms. In the past ten years nothing of significance has changed to make IEC units any more attractive than they were back in 2008-2009. In the end, they fail the most basic requirement for use: being widely used in our sources and in everyday life. Apple does not use GiB. Microsoft does not use GiB. Major electronics manufacturers do not use GiB. News outlets, especially those dealing in technology and computing, do not use GiB. Go read the archives, they tried using IEC here for years prior to WP:COMPUNITS, and IEC was ultimately deprecated due to lack of use in our sources and confusion to our most important concern: readers. —Locke Cole • t • c21:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Stating "G means 1024^3 here and only here" is not a workable solution. We need a better way to disambiguate, and the best disambiguation method will likely vary from article to article. Locke Cole needs to stop the campaign to introduce ambiguity into dozens of articles while we debate this. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I think in the long run we should leave the choice to the reader (similar to date formats and metric vs imperial units). For now, I'll add disambiguation footnotes, see DDR4 SDRAM. Unwieldy but so be it. We should create a template for the footnotes so there's a uniform format and it's easier to migrate (in case that actually happens). --Zac67 (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I support this form of disambiguation when GB has one and only one meaning in an article. I do not support it when it has two or more meanings. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm operating with the current consensus. Until you've shown support for another method I'll continue to edit as I have because the guideline has been stable for over a decade with significant support. If you want to change that, make it known and present your choice for how to proceed. Otherwise, drop it and move on and leave those of us working within the current MoS guidelines to improving Wikipedia by using language our readers understand and see everywhere else. —Locke Cole • t • c16:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
You are not working within current MOS guidelines; you acknowledge yourself that these require disambiguation and yet you choose not to follow that part. And I am not arguing for a change to those guidelines. Instead I am arguing against your repeated edits introducing ambiguity in SDRAM, when there is a clear consensus here that disambiguation is needed, and required by MOSNUM. And I am arguing that the article should stay in its state before this discussion ensured until we agree how it should be resolved. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:COMPUNITS already prescribes methods for disambiguating them. My edits have been focused on removing the inappropriate IEC units as in addition to not following the consensus here, they also violate WP:V and WP:NOR as almost all of our sources use the more traditional binary units. WP:SOFIXIT if you think something is not clear, using one of the already demonstrated methods at WP:COMPUNITS. The status quo is we do not use IEC units. Until you demonstrate consensus to change that I will not be hamstrung to constant debate over something that has already been settled for over a decade. Your problem is you don't think I have consensus when I already do. —Locke Cole • t • c16:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
You are aware of the requirement to disambiguate but you choose to ignore that requirement. Therefore your edits do not comply with COMPUNITS. I've made an attempt to disambiguate the article. Suggested improvements are welcome. An edit war is most unwelcome. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Dondervogel 2: I choose to accept that not everything on Wikipedia will be done simultaneously, or nothing would ever get done: see WP:NOTPERFECT. Your reverting back to a version where IEC units are in use, which runs contrary to the consensus here as well as the MoS guideline which says IEC units are not to be used except in a handful of very specific circumstances, is what is decidedly not welcome. You are disrupting Wikipedia by undoing constructive work. —Locke Cole • t • c05:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Dondervogel 2: What makes you think that G is solely used with the decimal meaning? M, G, T are commonly used referring to binary powers as well, especially by JEDEC. --Zac67 (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Zac67:My point is that GB/s is used in this particualr article in the decimal sense. I suppose we could define 1 GB as 1000^3 B and 1 Gbit as 1024^3 bit, but I prefer to see G used with only one meaning in any one article. Any other convention is likely to confuse the reader. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Zac67: I put a couple of 'dubious' tags at places where I think the article is now in error as a result of recent changes. See what you think. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Dondervogel 2: I beg to differ. In telecommunication and storage, there's no reason to use binary prefixes (save for some corner cases). Accordingly, "GB/s" should always be based on powers of 1000. Transfer rates are defined using decimal prefixes. For an example, check out JEDEC docs – for sizes they use 1024x and for rates 1000x (base clocks are 100 or 200 million Hz). If that doesn't really make sense then you've got my initial point. --Zac67 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Zac67: Sorry, I did not explain myself well. The problem is that the article defines Gbit to mean 1024^3 bit, and then uses it (where I placed the 'dubious' tags) to mean 1000^3 bit. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Dondervogel 2: Hmm, can't see any general definition in the article. All binary prefixes should be footnoted now, the plain ones should be decimal. --Zac67 (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Dondervogel 2: Sorry, you didn't. We don't use binary prefixes arbitrarily. When a data rate is defined by a frequency based on a decimal prefix (e.g. 200 MHz) it makes absolutely no sense to use a binary prefix (not even JEDEC do that), so we must stay decimal. In a nutshell, RAM size is expressed using binary, RAM speed in decimal. A rare exception could be when the frequency is some power of two, due to binary multiplication, but that isn't the case with standard RAM. Do we need a decimal footnote as well...? --Zac67 (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
No. That's not the solution. A Gbit is either 1000^3 bit or 1024^3 bit. At the moment it's both but we need to choose between them. Which is it? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Zac67: We should not assume the reader will know which Gbit is decimal and which is binary, and this is phrased in MOSNUM as "Do not assume that the binary or decimal meaning of prefixes will be obvious to everyone" and "consistency within an article is desirable". There is no reason to introduce inconsistency in this article. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
"Gbit" is decimal unless it's tagged as binary (which is clunky but Locke Cole wouldn't allow using IEC prefixes reasonably). Binary Gbit is reasonable for semiconductor memory sizes or capacities (and very few other cases). Data rates, disk capacities, etc all use decimal prefixes because there's no fundamental binary array behind them. Check WP:MOSNUM also. Consistency is desirable, but not to the extent of mashing up data rates. (like "100 MHz × 8 bit/s = 95.4 MB/s" – definitely not) --Zac67 (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
LC neither makes the rules, nor has a monopoly on their interpretation. MOSNUM requires us to think of the reader and make clear the meaning of each unit symbol. Using the same unit symbol (Gbit) with two different meaning does not achieve that, so the question becomes how else can it be done. Here are 4 examples of disambiguation in scientific publications:
In all 4 cases, disambiguation is achieved by using Gbit for the decimal quantity and Gibit for the binary one. We have both sought alternatives to clarify this article, and none so far has been successful. I propose we follow the disambiguation method used in reliable sources. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I think we've now sufficiently established that reliable sources use IEC prefixes and traditional, ambiguous prefixes both, with and without additional disambiguation (see below). That also falsifies the above statement that "IEC unit adoption is effectively non-existent". Also, MOSNUM currently permits IEC prefixes where both decimal and binary prefixes are reasonably used within an article and disambiguation is required.
From recent experience, I can say that using repetitive footnotes with binary prefixes is clunky at best. Can we now please use IEC prefixes (sparingly and where they are really useful, compliant with MOSNUM) without having to fear edit warring? --Zac67 (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Sufficient established? You say that as though you mean the majority of reliable sources use IEC prefixes. But you have only established that some reliable sources from academia use IEC prefixes. You still have to prove that the majority of reliable sources (including official sources such as manufacturer datasheets and standards bodies) use IEC prefixes and do not use MB/GB/TB/etc. You also have to prove that sources that use MB/GB/TB are unreliable. Stepho talk11:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
What has been established is that all sources identified to date that disambiguate on the subject of SDRAM, do so using IEC prefixes. That's a majority of about 52 reliable sources using IEC prefixes to none using the silly methods suggested by MOSNUM. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Stepho-wrs: Requiring a general majority of RS before allowing IEC prefixes in a page isn't helping – it could very quickly lead to the prefix use becoming a (biased) editor's selection criterion for RS, instead of a source's value in terms of clarity and appliability. Also, there's no ground for demanding a majority of sources – the current MOSNUM already allows IEC prefixes when individual tagging is impractical (which imho is clearly the case in the SDRAM article). --Zac67 (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tom94022 and Dondervogel 2:
Quoting the first sentence of WP:CALC: Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.
Let's take the requirements one by one:
[…] provided there is consensus among editors […] – seems like an important point;
[…] that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, […] – no disagreement there, as the IEC units as defined are a drop-in replacement for the classic metric unit names;
[…] and a meaningful reflection of the sources – …and here is where it all falls to pieces, very few reliable sources use these IEC units/prefixes. The vast majority, I'd expect somewhere north of 95% of sources use the classic kilobyte/KB, megabyte/MB, gigabyte/GB, terabyte/TB and so on. And regardless of that, the language here at WP:COMPUNITS has enjoyed consensus for over a decade. It is unacceptable to disrupt editors working to implement our style guidelines because you disagree with the result of the discussions here. If you want to change WP:COMPUNITS, this is the place to hold that discussion. That being said, endless debate because you disagree with what the majority supports is not going to work: Wikipedia does not have a filibuster. —Locke Cole • t • c16:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Contrary to his assertion above it is this article that allows IEC prefixes in the article in question. Locke Cole is edit warring by imposing his point of view at Memory hierarchy in spite of the clear teaching in this article that IEC prefixes maybe used "in articles in which both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary ..." The article in question has used IEC prefixes as prescribed in this article for clarity for a long time so there is clearly consensus amongst the editors of the article to use the prefixes and no one to date has supported his POV. Tom94022 (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
You missed the remaining quote from what you read: […] or declaring the actual meaning of a unit on each use would be impractical. My edit shows that using {{BDprefix}} made it possible to declare the actual meaning of each unit. This also keeps it in line with our sources which do not use GiB or MiB or KiB. —Locke Cole • t • c17:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The appropriate place for this discussion is Talk:Memory_hierarchy#IEC_units where the editors of that article can decide which section of this article is most applicable. Locke Cole is formum shopping by raising it here and any editor having knowledge and interest in application of IEC prefixes to memory hierarchy should comment there. Tom94022 (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
^Hanrahan, Tim; Fry, Jason (22 September 2003). "Finding the Dogs on the Net; Case of the Missing PC Bytes". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 1 May 2021. (In 1997 a standards body tried to clarify things by renaming the binary-derived units as gibibytes, which tells you all you need to know about the usefulness of engineers tinkering with language.)
We are talking about disambiguation in SDRAM and in Memory hierarchy. Do any of these newspaper articles disambiguate? If not they are not relevant to the discussion. Below are some scientific publications that are about either memory hierarchy or SDRAM. They all disambiguate using IEC prefixes. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
If not they are not relevant to the discussion. Sorry, what? In what universe do you think the media-at-large not using the terms you're pushing is somehow not a death-knell for the idea at the outset? And I'll say again, I've yet to see any sources in the articles I've changed which utilized IEC units, let alone any with a ratio of IEC being more prominent than the traditional metric units. Wikipedia is not a platform to push your agenda. —Locke Cole • t • c19:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I would just note that encyclopedic usage (and, broadly, the usage of reference publications) is not in any way restricted to what newspapers do – not least, because most people who write STEM-related articles for popular media are not, in my experience, overwhelmingly technically literate (I am reminded of a newspaper article about astronomy which seemed to imply that Jupiter was larger than the Sun). Moreover, newspapers have their own objectives (i.e. to sell copy and turn a profit), which are distinct from those of Wikipedia. I agree completely with Dondervogel's point above about the primacy of disambiguation; in a work of reference (and not so much in a newspaper), easily avoided ambiguity is unforgiveable sloppiness.
I would also note that this phrase "traditional metric units" is contentious; bits and bytes aren't (IMHO) really "metric", but if we are going there, the SI Brochure stipulates (marginal note on p. 143 of bilingual version of 9th edition, at the start of Section 3, Decimal multiples and sub-multiples of SI units):
The SI prefixes refer strictly to powers of 10. They should not be used to indicate powers of 2 (for example, one kilobit represents 1000 bits and not 1024 bits). The names and symbols for prefixes to be used with powers of 2 are recommended as follows: [tabulated IEC prefixes]
We're lucky then that, in addition to newspapers not using the terms, nobody else seems to be either in any significant manner. This table is just one example of how comically bad the adoption of IEC units has been. —Locke Cole • t • c10:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation in scientific publications on memory hierarchy
I maintain that reliable sources that disambiguate on the subject of memory hierarchy, do so using IEC prefixes. Are there any counter-examples? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Here's a cherry picked counterpoint against your cherry picked examples:
When there are millions of papers out there, any selection is unlikely to be representative. You can pick hundreds of papers showing your view and I can pick hundreds of papers showing my view. Both selections are meaningless. Hence, any hand picked selection is inherently cherry picked - even if it unintentional.
For the paper that I showed, look at page 19 (use the printed page number, not the PDF page number). It says "2MB (16x128KB)" and a few similar expressions - clearly showing that it is not 2,000 KB or 2,000,000 bytes.
But let's go to a more authoritative source. JEDEC defines standards for many memory devices - including eMMC/MMC/SDCard devices and DIMM/SDRAM. The MMC standard is at https://www.jedec.org/sites/default/files/docs/JESD84-B51.pdf (you will need to register but it's free). JEDEC uses KB/MB/GB exclusively.
Feel free to explore JEDEC - they have plenty of documents using KB/MB/GB/TB/etc and I have found only one that mentions IEC prefixes: "JEDEC Dictionary of Terms for Solid-State Technology – 7 th Edition" https://www.jedec.org/system/files/docs/JESD88F.pdf . On page 135 (PDF page 141) it gives the definition of mega and specifically contrasts it with mebi. And then they never use the IEC prefixes in any other document (at least not that that I have found by pulling documents at random).
I believe this discussion started at the SDRAM article. SDRAM standards are maintained by JEDEC. And JEDEC use non-IEC prefixes. Stepho talk13:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
JEDEC use mixed prefixes. They use binary ones for memory capacity only and decimal/SI ones for data rates and such. While this is a commonly understood way for seasoned professionals, I don't think it's the right way to go for WP, given our reader scope. The same goes for the "2MB (16x128KB) [...] clearly showing" quoted above. Even JEDEC have acknowledged good use cases for IEC prefixes, they just don't live it that way (yet) – given the lack of pressure in these circles, an adjustment may very well take decades. I think – and hope – we can be more progressive here. --Zac67 (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Sun 2011: Thanks. I see now that MB is is disambiguated in the way you suggest. I don't see KB or GB disambiguated anywhere. Worse, the disambiguation of MB helps me not one iota to decipher (p94) "The average bandwidth provided by main memory is assumed to be 8GB/S". Not very professional and certainly not an example we should follow.
JEDEC: We cannot expect our readers to be familiar with JEDEC standards. Nor does JEDEC define all of the prefixes in a binary sense. See Template:Quantities_of_bytes.
Regardless of where it was started, for topics relating to memory (DRAM, SDRAM, GDDR, etc), JEDEC is the organization that creates standards and generally promotes the terms used on packaging and in manufacturer literature. As discussed below in IEC units in scholarly papers, the instances of IEC units is vanishingly small compared to the use of the traditional metric units in scholarly papers. —Locke Cole • t • c16:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
D, if you expect the reader to not understand the source of most computer memory standards but do expect them to understand academic papers then your rose coloured glasses have become cherry coloured glasses. Both are written to about the same level of complexity and both would be roughly equal in understandability to the reader. Stepho talk20:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: The "traditional metric units" you refer to are in many cases not metric units, but binary units. If they don't disambiguate we can't tell, and that is my point. In my experience, the ones that do disambiguate use IEC prefixes.
@Dondervogel 2: That's a nice idea, but the fact that only two sources in print media even use those terms at all takes the air out of that idea really fast. Then considering less than two percent of scholarly works reference those units, again, makes that argument very unbelievable. See Hitchens's razor and Sagan standard. Even the sources you've cited here have been found to not be disambiguating like you claim, so the assertion that the ones that do disambiguate use IEC prefixes is simply not true. —Locke Cole • t • c15:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm done playing your "I don't hear you" game. The majority of editors here don't support changing COMPUNITS. COMPUNITS already says IEC units are The IEC prefixeskibi- (symbol Ki), mebi- (Mi), gibi- (Gi), etc., are generally not to be used. There are already methods in COMPUNITS to disambiguate that do not involve using IEC units. You're not convincing anyone with this game you're playing at where you fork these discussions (which are largely about the same fucking thing) and then pretend you don't see or choose to ignore conversations that don't go as you wanted. The IEC units are not widely used by our reliable sources, by the media at large, by scholarly works, or by businesses and manufacturers in the industry. Full stop, end of story. I'm done here unless someone besides you says something even remotely compelling. —Locke Cole • t • c08:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
You did not answer my question; is that because the sources do disambiguate as claimed? And I don't recall proposing a change to COMPUNITS; this discussion is about ambiguities in Memory hierarchy. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@Dondervogel 2: can you explain what words you think I am putting in your mouth? You presented a handful of academic papers and I presented the official standard used for most computer memory production. Both have similar levels of complexity and both are equally understandable (or at least equally hard to understand). Why would you accept one and reject the other? Stepho talk23:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Your post implies that I "expect the reader to not understand the source of most computer memory standards but do expect them to understand academic papers", which is not what I said. My words were "We cannot expect our readers to be familiar with JEDEC standards", which means that if WP decides to follow JEDEC standards, WP needs to explain the implications by disambiguating, which is no more than what COMPUNITS already says. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation in scientific publications on SDRAM
Scientific publications using other methods of disambiguation
None identified to date
Discussion
I maintain that reliable sources that disambiguate on the subject of SDRAM, do so using IEC prefixes. Are there any counter-examples? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't have an IEEE or Springer account so I can't verify those links, but Carroll and Heiser, 2010 is NOT about SDRAM. The title of the paper is An Analysis of Power Consumption in a Smartphone. Floris et al 2004, which is also not a paper about SDRAM but instead titled A New PCI Card for Readout in High EnergyPhysics Experiments, discusses SDRAM in discussing the card, but doesn't disambiguate at all. Likewise, Fujiwara et al, 2020 is also not a paper about SDRAM but mentions it in passing, and does not disambiguate. Sunter et al 2016, which will come to a surprise to nobody at this point, is ALSO not about SDRAM. It's a paper titled DUAL-CAMERA PAYLOAD for ESEO which is about a dual camera system for a low-Earth orbit device. It also does not disambiguate as you claim (and in fact fails to disambiguate a microSD card that the paper claims has 1 GiB of storage, which would be remarkable considering most SD cards use 1 GB = 1 billion bytes, and the manufacturer advertises their cards as using GB not GiB). I'll wait for someone with IEEE and/or Springer access to confirm those links, but I'm not impressed with what you're presenting so far... —Locke Cole • t • c01:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm certain to regret this, but like a moth to the flame I can't resist. I do have access. I haven't been following (except to thank my stars I don't care about the issue) but if you'll tell me exactly what I'm looking for I can copy out relevant bits. EEng04:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
like a moth to the flame I can't resist; so long as you don't set yourself alight because I might still take you up on that hose offer above. Luckily I can see titles and an abstract for the Springer/IEEE links, so really you just need to look at 1) how prominent SDRAM is as a topic to the paper overall (is it mentioned in passing as a dry tech spec, is SDRAM itself actually discussed in great detail, or..?), 2) is the paper using IEC units (KiB/kibibyte, MiB/mebibyte, GiB/gibibyte, TiB/tebibyte, etc) and 3) does the paper also utilize decimal versions of the metric units (KB/kilobyte, MB/megabyte, GB/gigabyte, TB/terabyte, etc). Here's the links in table form, just fill in the blanks:
Thank you! =) @Dondervogel 2: So these all appear to be mentioning SDRAM, not papers about SDRAM, and you appear to be pretty lax in your assessment that they are "disambiguating", since it seems like most are just using IEC units outright, with no other data units (like KB, MB, GB) in use. A paper using MiB and then using MHz is not what I'd call a shining example. I think the big confusion we were all trying to solve is around MB being either 1,024 × 1,024 = 1,048,576 or 1,000 × 1,000 = 1,000,000. I very much doubt readers are being confused by MHz and MB/megabyte. —Locke Cole • t • c16:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
What I see is "512 MiB SDRAM" (Andersson 2017); "32 MiB SDRAM" (Engel 2019 and Gotzheim 2020); "128 MiB SDRAM" (Mundy 2015). Clearly about SDRAM and with no ambiguity. Mentioning the amount in MB would only muddy the waters. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
IEC units in scholarly writings
@Dondervogel 2: At User:Thunderbird2/The case against deprecation of IEC prefixes, which you apparently have religiously updated over the years, there is a Google Scholars link that you use to determine how many articles are using IEC units. I note that currently for the 2020-2022 period there are 582 hits for MiB/GiB. That same search ran with MB/GB returns 44,900. Granted, some of those may be false positives (since MB/GB are more likely to occur as initials for other terms), so for clarity I ran the search using mebibytes/gibibytes and megabytes/gigabytes. There were 28 hits for the IEC unit, and 1,560 for the traditional metric unit. It would seem, even among research papers, that IEC units make up a small fragment, about 1.76%. Metric units accounted for 98.23% of the results. As I've already explained above, the wider media at large does not use the IEC units whatsoever, and their use in academic circles appears to be vastly outnumbered by the traditional metric units. —Locke Cole • t • c16:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I just stopped Dondervogel 2 (talk·contribs) from moving yet another conversation here from Talk:SD card. Is there any consensus for having multiple almost identical discussions? When I started this discussion it was with a goal of letting them see if they can convince editors here to change WP:COMPUNITS to allow for more IEC usage. Dondervogel 2 has forked this conversation into separate discussions unnecessarily as the issue is not with these individual articles, but rather with whether or not IEC units are something the editors here feel have reached a point where they should be used in Wikipedia-at-large. After the AN/EW closure I thought we might see some actual discussion, but instead I see Dondervogel has returned to starting forest fires and trying to fork these conversations. So again: Is there any consensus for having multiple discussions here on different articles? —Locke Cole • t • c17:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: There's a longstanding unwritten rule on MOSNUM that discussions about changes to MOSNUM take place once a need for the discussion is established following disagreement on article talk pages. It was your decision to bring discussions on individual articles here and no one objected so I have participated in the discussions here. But it's important to distinguish between discussions about changes to WP:COMPUNITS (though I have proposed none) and discussions about individual articles about the implementation of COMPUNITS. It's time to stop your bullying. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Dondervogel 2: But you appear to be editing against longstanding consensus here that IEC units are generally not to be used. Methods for disambiguation already exist at COMPUNITS, which you are well aware of. The fact that you're trying to fork these discussions doesn't instill much good faith in your actions. It's time for you to stop acting against consensus here and consider other uses of your time. My involvement on this issue is recent, where you seem to be holding a very long grudge and just looking for excuses to undermine the current language that's been here. It's disruptive and unnecessary. —Locke Cole • t • c18:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Put up a notice here, but unless you want to change something about the guideline, the actual discussion would be better off at the article's talk page. Primergrey (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
You've literally had two administrators tell you this is the best location for a discussion. I get that you'd rather hold these discussions off on obscure pages far from the prying eyes of people interested in the subject so you could force these units in over a long period, but enough is enough. Stop making forest fires. —Locke Cole • t • c18:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
User:EdJohnston said that this would be "the best venue to solve the underlying issue" i.e. determine whether or not a change to the guideline is appropriate. If there are debates at multiple articles that all focus on the same piece of guidance, then a possible change to said guidance could only occur here. I wasn't aware that this went beyond the single article, SD card. Primergrey (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Here's a list of article, template, talk and other pages that both Locke Cole and Dondervogel 2 have edited since 1 March 2021. Excluding WP:3RRN and this WT:MOSNUM there are 39, of which every one I've checked has involved IEC units. They range from x86-64 to WinZip to Template:Quantities of bytes but yes, SD card's there too. Of course there may be similar disputes involving only one of those editors or neither, or older disputes. NebY (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The community has spoken on this issue. Thunderbird2 was without a doubt the most tendentious editor I ever experienced. I don’t know if the fact that years have passed makes this tendentiousness more forgivable or less. The purpose of a general-interest encyclopedia is to communicate clearly. There are many things in the world that should have had better naming conventions, like planetary nebula, which have nothing at all to do with planets, but a general-interest encyclopedia goes with the flow and doesn’t try to effect change in an “Oh, didn’tcha know”-fashion by using unconventional terminology that 99% of our readership has never seen before… all in the vain hope that somehow our leadership might catch on with the rest of the world.
As a general-interest encyclopedia, Wikipedia follows the standard conventions used throughout the dominant bulk of the computer industry. The vast majority of the computer industry, including industry leaders of DRAM like Crucial (here) Micron (here) use conventional terminology familiar to every single computer user, from the aficionado to experts. Industry-leading manufacturers of PCs, like Dell here) and Apple (here) also use conventional technology. If you want to buy DRAM at an online retailer, they are smart enough to use conventional terminology (Amazon, here). The use of non-standard terminology is confusing and a disservice to our readership.
Why are we even debating Thunderbird2/Dondervogel 2? He’s out in left field tilting at technology windmills. We have better things to do in life than deal with tendentious. Doesn’t Wikipedia have an expedient system to just say “No. Move on”? Greg L (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Since ambiguous units create confusion, everyone seems to agree that disambiguation is necessary. The current guideline allows to use IEC units for disambiguation in articles where both meanings are mixed. So why is there so much clamour when someone does it that way? −Woodstone (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Quoting you “So why is there so much clamour when someone does it that way?”. Because terms like “gibibits” are so unusual and unfamiliar, spell checkers don’t even recognize them. Not even one-half centiuno of the world uses the terminology. It’s obvious. We’ve been down this path over a decade ago and nothing is changed. The unfamiliar terminology just confuses. Greg L (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
In the specialised world of DRAM and SDRAM quite a few publications use units like GiB. Both by manufacturers and community sites. You underestimate the usage in the real world.−Woodstone (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Woodstone:, thanks for confirming that. For me, the discussion started on Synchronous dynamic random-access memory on 24 April with repetitive reverts mentioning WP:MOSNUM, which were in fact unfounded. I'm just trying to use "64 Gibit RAM" instead of clumsy "~68.719 Gbit RAM" or clunky "64 Gbit RAM (here, G means 1024^3)" when mixed prefixes are required in an article and there's no clear preference for either variant. --Zac67 (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Generally for any unit X, a gigaX is equal to 109X. It is not surprising that making an exception for X=bit or X=byte causes confusion, especially since even for those units it is often used to mean just 109 as well. Disambiguation is definitely the right thing to do. Professional circles use GiB and Gibit for the binary case and this seems a perfectly acceptable way to disambiguate the usage. −Woodstone (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman: The general problem is that the meaning of "Gbit" depends on context. Usually, "Gbit" means 10003 bits. In special cases like memory capacities, chip sizes and such, it means 10243 bits – for those in the know. Since we've got a slightly broader audience, WP:MOSNUM very reasonably requires us to disambiguate. The current dispute is about whether it's OK to use "64 Gibit" in cases where mixed prefixes are used within a page and there's no clear preference (like on SDRAM) (as I think is clearly mandated by MOSNUM), or if disambiguation requires clunky (imho) footnotes or similar. --Zac67 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain #IEC units in scholarly writings, above? Almost 99% of scholarly writings use the metric units. Professionals use the metric units (see anything from datasheets to tech notes to the packaging on professionally manufactured products like hard drives, memory or SSDs). Ten years on since the last time this was seriously discussed and the usage hasn't even wiggled the needle, but you think this means we should include it in an encyclopedia? —Locke Cole • t • c15:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: We only had to care about scholarly writings, datasheets, industry commitees or leaders use if there was need to change WP:MOSNUM. There isn't. The policy is fine as it is because it allows prefixes in special, reasonable cases. So, please stop reverting edits that are made in those cases, conforming with MOSNUM. (In case you're still wondering, I'm not asking for the use of IEC prefixes for arbitrary figures like (user-visible) capacities of disk drives or memory cards.) --Zac67 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Zac67: If your edits follow COMPUNITS, follow what our sources say, and otherwise aren't original research, you have nothing to fear from me. To date, no source from SDRAM has been shown to contain IEC units or derivatives. —Locke Cole • t • c19:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Why should it matter what the sources use? There's no obligation to locate such sources in WP:MOSNUM, it's just one of the cases. --Zac67 (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Locke, "source-based units" became anathema here after editors were (accused of) picking sources only so they could, for example, display footballer's heights in metres. Really. It was part of a long conflict about Wikipedia standardising on metric units and it got ugly. We use sources, other style guides, and so on when thinking what MOSNUM should say, and if we're converting between units in an article, we need to make sure we understand what units the sources are using, but there are reasons beyond the IEC question not to let a reference determine the units used in an article. NebY (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
And yet COMPUNITS currently has when the majority of cited sources on the article topic use IEC prefixes; as one of the reasons one could conceivably use IEC units. Which I think is reasonable, but in the end, it's just a different way of tackling WP:V and WP:NPOV (specifically, WP:UNDUE). And given the data I've presented above, there seems to be very little use of IEC units compared to the traditional metric units for computing articles, so really it ought to be a moot point. But, here we are... —Locke Cole • t • c20:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
when the majority of cited sources on the article topic use IEC prefixes looks fine but I fear it's being stretched too far. For example, if the majority of sources on RAM used IEC prefixes, that might justify using IEC prefixes in an article about RAM. But I've found IEC prefixes being used in articles about iPads to say how much RAM they have. There are 87 references for iPad 2. I haven't checked them all but frankly, if someone wants to make the extraordinary claim that most of them use IEC prefixes, they need to produce the extraordinary proof.
The trouble with that approach is that can mean article-by-article warfare that doesn't really end until someone gets sanctioned. I fear COMPUNITS might have to be more specific, for example by specifying precisely which family of articles use IEC prefixes. NebY (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with what NebY wrote. To merely speak about “64 MB” DRAM in an article that is also discussing hard drive sizes does not…
A) necessarily require clarification that the two measures are actually slightly different, and
B) even if clarification was truly necessary, the need to point out the difference in the precise size of the two measures does not require the use of weird units that the vast majority of the computer industry has ignored, is ignoring, and will likely continue to ignore.
For the most part, it suffices to merely write that Alpha’s XYZ computer had 4 GB of RAM and a 1 TB hard drive but their XYZ-8 computer had 8 GB of RAM. In most cases, the reader really only needs to know—and only wants to know—that the XYZ-8 has twice the RAM.
It is a rare instance that mere mentioning of both attributes within an article requires “disambiguation,” which often really only means “explain the small difference in actual magnitude.” One example that quickly comes to mind is when one is writing about very arcane technical details pertaining to swapping data in and out of a RAM disk. And even then, one can make the technical details perfectly clear while using conventional units of measure that are commonly used in the computer industry and which 999 milliuno of our readership are perfectly familiar with.
Good technical writing is that which is suitable for its intended audience, informs and educates quickly, does so with ease and makes for an enjoyable experience, and does so without drawing attention to itself. Greg L (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@Greg L: So, you essentially propose to ignore the ambiguity and use 1 TB RAM (implying 10244) and 1 TB HDD (implying 10004) side by side? Mind you, the "small" error is roughly 10 % (1.0244) – the deviance has grown quite a bit since we've used kilobytes and it won't stop there. Also, that ambiguity totally ignores Do not assume that the binary or decimal meaning of prefixes will be obvious to everyone. --Zac67 (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@Zac67: Seriously? Seriously?? So, you tell me… just what part of my 02:14, 5 May 2021 post suggested that any responsible wikipedian should ignore an ambiguity that (legitimately) requires clarification (insofar as 64 GB of DRAM vs. the same in hard drive space)? I couldn’t have been any clearer. If you aren’t going to bother to read other‘s posts and fire off misrepresentations of what they wrote, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?
And secondly, wherever there is a genuine need for clarification, one can do so without using oddball Porky Pig’s gigiagigibits that our readership doesn’t recognize and would be afraid to repeat in the real world for fear of being laughed at. Whenever the mainstream computer industry perceives the need to clarify, they manage to pull off the task using conventional terminology everyone is familiar with. Greg L (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia aims to give readers information that's accessible and easy to contextualise, without tripping them up. We use common names and common units, we try not to be obstructively precise and we try to accept that it's not our mission to tidy up the world and right all its wrongs.
Readers are familar with memory coming in lumps of 1, 2, 4, 8 ... GB. They understand that in terms of functionality and ease of use, and they contextualise by seeing it expressed in the same way on sales pages, in popular media and in Wikipedia. They're not trying to calculate how many times the memory could be dumped into storage of 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 ... GB. They're not helped by being told something's 0.96 GiB, parenthetically or not; that just makes readers stumble.
Telling readers that WinZip's passed the 4-gibibyte barrier is overly technical and with no similar values for context it's potentially very confusing - is that something to do with the difference between bits and bytes, is a gibi a giga-giga? It can't simply be basically the same as 4 gigabytes or else Wikipedia would have said 4 gigabytes instead, right? "Disambiguating" complicates. Our readers know the difference between 2 and 4 and can tell K, M and G apart, and that should be enough.
Of course, editors matter too. We'd like readers to find a degree of consistency and comparability across Wikipedia articles, from IPad Pro (4th generation) to Samsung Galaxy S8 to Surface Pro 6, but that needs the editors to be on board. If you or Dondervogel 2 start converting each article, you'll often be reverted. If you counter-revert explaining it's per the MOS, we'll have more editors turning up here to change the MOS and make it express consensus more strictly. Sadly, we'll also have more editors thinking the MOS is entirely rubbish and best ignored, WP:PEACOCK and WP:COMPUNITS alike, and our readers will suffer. NebY (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
examples
Here are a few examples of the consequences for our articles, for those of us who find it easier to compare examples directly rather than follow a sea of links. They're from recent versions of a rather random selection of articles from this interaction list. These may not represent editors' best efforts, of course.
Over at the talk page for Template:Quantities of bytes(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in the section Recent Edit to Table the discussion has somehow switched to how JEDEC memory units are being given undue weight in the template (despite the presence of IEC units which, as shown above in media and scholarly use, are basically non-existent in sources or the wider media-at-large). Interested editors may wish to chime in there; I didn't initially move the discussion here because it started out innocently enough as a discussion about whether or not JEDEC terabyte should be in the table, but now the discussion has taken a turn to whether or not JEDEC units belong at all... I'm personally of the opinion that the IEC units are the ones being given undue weight, and we're effectively pushing a fringe theory by even giving them this much life outside of the IEC standards article(s), but more opinions would be appreciated. —Locke Cole • t • c16:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Why are the capacities in the thumbnail descriptions given in powers of 1000 (or 10x where x is an int), e.g MB, GB, TB, while elsewhere they are in powers of 1024 (or 2x where x % 10 = 0), e.g MiB, GiB, TiB? I'm concerned because as the capacities increase, esp for TB vs TiB and PB vs PiB, the difference in bytes is huge.
Good question. My (limited) understanding is that the maximum capacities are binary (see exFAT), but that the published capacities are decimal. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Let me point out one example of the problem I see. Near the beginning of the article, 'GB' is used in the decimal sense (eg, "formatting in excess of 2 GB (2000 MB)", whereas later a binary meaning is implied (eg, "up to 32 GB (34359738368 bytes)"), making it impossible for reader to tell which meaning is intended in specific instances, thus contravening COMPUNITS. I would not be surprised to find similar problems with MB and TB, but in situations like this I find it helpful to focus initially on a specific issue. By far the simplest solution is to make the decimal and binary meanings explicit. Does anyone have a counter-proposal? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
This ambiguous usage is widespread in the industry, making many unreliable many otherwise reliable sources unreliable. In all honesty, it is doing a King Canute to assert that MB/GB/TB etc always and only mean ^10 and that 'people' should use MiB/GiB/TiB when they mean ^2. It doesn't happen in the real world. Sales will go on using 10^ and engineering will go on using 2^. And sales will use 'B' for bits and engineering will use 'b'. The GiB notation has never gained acceptance and Wikipedia cannot assume that readers (and many editors) have ever even seen it, let alone know what it means. So the MOS must require that articles state explicitly the meaning intended when these abbreviations are used. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with your premise that an encyclopaedia cannot explain things (in fact I think that is the whole purpose of an encyclopaedia), but I think COMPUNITS already says what you are suggesting it should say. Do you have a proposal for bringing the article into compliance with COMPUNITS? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
No, that is not my premise. An encyclopedia, like a dictionary, records what is, not what should be. Otherwise it takes us into wp:right great wrongs. So the relevant policy is MOS:Abbreviations: initialisms should always be spelled out and disambiguated if necessary, on first use. So if an SD card is described as having capacity 1GB or 1 gigabyte then, per COMPUNITS, the article needs to spell out whether "giga' means 109 or 230. I suppose a footnote might be appropriate to explain the notations and to refer to "learned institutions" preferred style but it is UNDUE to insert a mini-lecture inline in every article.
Anyway, to come back to your Let me point out one example of the problem I see. The case you cite is a blatant failure to wp:think of the reader. Any given article should use the initialism with just one and only one meaning throughout. (IMO, it also should have a comment note that advices future editors of that choice – I thinking of something like {{use DMY dates}}.) In the exceptional case where both meanings are needed, then it will be necessary to use (and explain) the MiB/GiB etc notation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Sentence stricken because I see that the MiB notation is deprecated by COMPUNITS. (I approve). So explicit exponentiation is needed for the exceptional cases. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Are you suggesting each occurrence of 'GB' should be replaced with one of either 'GB (10003 B)' or 'GB (10243 B)', as applicable? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure why we are even discussing this here? What happens on the SD card article should be resolved at talk:SD card. Your 'one example of the problem' is just an example of poor editing at that article: I don't see a general issue that needs to be escalated to the MOS talk page. I don't understand why the discussion was closed so peremptorily. Clearly there is a history to this?
(But for what it is worth, I'm suggesting that articles should use one meaning or the other, make it clear up front which choice has been made, and only in exceptional circumstances should the the same abbreviation (or name) be used to mean two different things. IFF that is unavoidable, yes, each instance needs a parenthesised qualification.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Dondervogel 2 prefers using the obscure and generally unused IEC prefixes. They wish to operate against the longstanding consensus in WP:COMPUNITS. If they want to use IEC units, here is the correct place to have that discussion. If they want to discuss deviating from the suggested methods of disambiguation at COMPUNITS then here seems like the best choice (since their disambiguation method appears to involve using the IEC units which COMPUNITS explicitly says are "generally not to be used"). If they've moved off from that position then I don't care where they have the discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c19:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman: I think the best place to hold the discussion about SD card is at the article talk page. However, Locke Cole closed an ongoing discussion at SD card and when I asked where it should be held, both Locke Cole and Primergrey preferred to hold it here. Locke Cole is seems to be now back-tracking and claims he doesn't care where the discussion is held. Let us now stop debating where it should be held and focus on IMPROVING the article. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman: I agree the meaning should not change within an article, so the trick is to pick one and keep that meaning throughout. The article starts with decimal GB and later flips to binary, and then flips back and forth like a yo-yo, creating an incomprehensible mess. Should we pick the decimal meaning or the binary one? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Locke Cole is now back-tracking and claims he doesn't care where the discussion is held - I've done no such thing. Stop lying. —Locke Cole • t • c21:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Locke Cole said "if you have moved off that position then..." so it does appear that you are conveniently choosing the second part of their sentence because that is what suits you. It strains AGF when you do that sort of thing.
So let me be clear: right at the beginning of this I said The GiB notation has never gained acceptance and Wikipedia cannot assume that readers (and many editors) have ever even seen it, let alone know what it means. That remains my position. This notation does not solve your example of the problem because readers will not know what it means, any more than if you had suggested we use the Chinese character. The only practical solution is to spell out abbreviations clearly: if we mean 1,073,741,824 then that is what we should say. What we must not do in the same article is have GB mean 109 in one sentence and have it mean 230 in the next sentence. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the correct place to discuss it. It is a problem that comes up in many computer related articles, so thrashing it out in a single article's talk page will just make it a discussion that has to be repeated for each and every article - what a waste of time!
To summarise the problem (using GB in the examples but also applying to the other prefixes): some uses of GB (giga bytes) means 10^9 and some mean 2^30. Some editors prefer to:
Disambiguate them by using IEC prefixes like Gibi-. But these have failed to gain traction in the industry or popular media and remain relegated to some portions of academia.
Disambiguate them via parenthetical notes or footnotes. It works but is repetitive and tends to clutter up the articles.
Don't disambiguate them at all. Leaves the article clean but some readers will be confused when to use 10^9 or 2^30.
The short explanation is that memory this is directly addressable by the CPU (eg RAM, ROM) uses powers of 2 while practically everything else uses powers of 10 (eg hard drives, thumb drives and anything to do with rates or time). It is the directly addressable part that is critical. For RAM or ROM the CPU has to provide a certain number of binary address lines, so the size must be a power of 2. For devices that have some type of interface (eg IDE/PATA, SATA, USB), the address is sent as a number within a command. The remote device is free to remap that address in any way that it feels fit (eg, hard drives mapped a single address into cylinder, head, sector and the CHS numbers were usually not powers of 2), so the address is not constrained to powers of 2. This is anecdotal but based on my 3-4 decades of professional experience designing/programming computers.
Trying to explain to explain this in every computer article will just clutter up every article. Instead, I suggest that most articles are just left in the ambiguous state. After all, most readers don't really care about a 7% difference - most readers don't even know or care how much RAM their PC or phone has, only that it has enough. The people that care tend to already know when to use 10^9 or 2^30. But some articles that cover a broad topic like RAM, hard disk, or SD Card can spell out the appropriate form (or forms if it needs to specify capacity in powers of 2 and rates in powers of 10). Stepho talk01:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
After a couple of false starts (GB and TB), I decided to use MB as a guinea pig. As far as I can tell, it is used primarily in the decimal sense, and there was already a statement to that effect near the beginning, which I have now qualified because there are exceptions. I have also labelled the exceptions. Does it make sense like this for MB? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
What's the true formatted storage capacity of an iPhone, iPad or iPod?
This article by the editor of Macworld explains the storage capacity of iPhones, iPads and iPods, and leads with "What is the true formatted storage capacity of an iPhone, iPad or iPod - how many songs, films, apps and games can they hold? And why is the true capacity lower than the advertised figure?". To make himself clear the author uses GB to mean 1000^3 B and GiB to mean 1024^3 B. The introduction to the article reads
"Before we start, here's the reported capacities we've been seeing for each of the four current storage tiers for iOS devices. Bear in mind that these are approximate (we've seen some variation between models and versions of iOS), but they give an idea of the shortfall you should be expect from the advertised storage capacity.
You'll notice that I've used the unit 'GiB', or gibibyte, even though iTunes clearly uses the unit GB. I'll explain why this is, and the difference between the two, in the next section."
The article was cited in several Wikipedia articles, but it seems to have been removed. I suggest reinstating the reference because it helps to explain the storage capacity in a language WP readers can understand. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems my proposed changes at iPad Pro, iPad Air, iPad Mini, iPad Mini 2 and iPod Touch have been reverted iPad Pro, iPad Air, iPad Mini, iPad Mini 2, iPod Touch, with an edit summary suggesting the articles were being brought “into compliance with WP:COMPUNITS”. Perhaps the articles are now compliant with COMPUNITS (I’ve not checked) but the reason for raising this here is that the information about availability capacity was deleted without explanation. The wording at iPad Pro was
“Advertised storage capacities are 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1000 or 2000 GB. Actual storage capacities of the 32 and 128 GB models are 29.5 GB (27.5 GiB) and 122.4 GB (114 GiB), respectively.[1]”
I now suggest re-instating the deleted information. Alternative proposals, or suggestions with alternative wording are invited. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes. We need to be accurate about the fact that the advertised capacities do not account for the OS and for pre-installed (usually non-uninstallable) bloatware which is increasing with each successive generation. We're here to help the reader, not the manufacturers/advertisers of devices. Use clearer wording, though, like "Advertised storage capacities are .... Usable capacities, minus the OS and other pre-installed software, are ..., respectively." — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
It is a fool's errand to try to nail the exact size down. Which size are you after?
the exact number of bytes in the flash chips? Then somebody will sue you because you promised X bytes but some of them are taken up by files for the OS, inbuilt apps, etc and are not available to the user.
the exact number of bytes not taken up storing files for the OS, inbuilt apps, etc. Do we subtract overhead for directory information (creation date, author, etc) ? Do we subtract out overhead for things like the FAT table? Do we subtract out boot sectors?
the exact number available to the user. But due to cluster size issues, different size files waste space at the end of each cluster in different proportions. With a cluster size of 4096 bytes, a million files take up 4,096,000,000 bytes of file space (plus more for directory information). But a million files of 4096 bytes takes up the exact same space.
We can only go by what the sources tell us. In this case the source explains that the main reason for the discrepancy between "128 GB" (marketed capacity) and "114 GB" (reported capacity) is that the advertised capacity is in gigabytes (GB) while the reported capacity is in gibibytes (GiB), the conversion being 128 GB = 119.2 GiB. The remaining difference (between 119.2 GiB and 114 GiB) is attributed to the "IOS operating system sotware, and the preinstalled ... apps that Apple pops on your device ...". Taking all this into account, I suggest:
"Advertised storage capacities are 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1000 or 2000 GB. Storage capacities reported by the device are less than this, for two reasons. The main reason is that advertised capacities are in gigabytes, while the capacities reported by the operating system in gibibytes. One gibibyte (1 GiB) is about 7 % larger than one gigabyte (1 GB), so for a fixed storage capacity the ‘number’ of gibibytes is about 7 % smaller. For example, 128 GB is approximately 119 GiB, and if all 128 gigabytes were available for storage, this would be reported by the operating system as “119 GB”. For the same model, the operating system and pre-installed apps take up a further 5 GiB, leaving 114 GiB, which is reported as “114 GB”.[2]"
If I understand him correctly, then yes, WP iPhome/iPad/iPod articles should just copy whatever Apple advertised them as. Anything else is a minefield being traversed with a very poor map. Stepho talk00:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
'The operating system of your iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, and Mac reports storage capacity using the decimal system (base 10), which calculates 1GB as 1 billion bytes. This is the same measurement system used on the product packaging and specifications.
iOS 10 and earlier, Mac OS X Leopard and earlier, Microsoft Windows, and watchOS use the binary system (base 2), which calculates 1GB as 1,073,741,824 bytes. This difference between the decimal and binary systems of measurement is why the reported storage capacity differs from the storage capacity on the product packaging or specifications.'
That article is only an opinion piece - typical of an editorial. And his numbers don't add up. In his own words "Still, it's not quite enough to account for the discrepancies we saw above" and then he hand waves a bit that the OS fills in the missing bytes. It's true that the OS does take up space (I mentioned this myself) but we don't know exactly how much. Therefore we can't use that to magically say the advertised XX GB matches exactly YY GiB. Stepho talk10:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Dondervogel 2, it looks as if you're struggling to find a suitable source that says what you want it to say. On Wikipedia, that's when we don't say it. NebY (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@NebY: No, the opposite is the case. This discussion started with a secondary source that answered a question posed by SMcCandlish. But Stepho-wrs objected to its use because it was not a primary source, so I am now suggesting a primary source that says the same thing. Given that the two sources are consistent, and answer a legitimate question, should we use the primary or secondary source? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
No, Stepho_wrs did not "objected to its use because it was not a primary source" but objected on other grounds which you don't address. You "infer from your [Stepho-wrs] reply you prefer the primary source", but Stepho-wrs did not say that. Now you reframe it as an either/or question about which source to use but you're not hearing the answer already given: Neither. The question is whether you should keep trying to force your material into the article, but you're not hearing the answers. NebY (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The precise words were "WP iPhome/iPad/iPod articles should just copy whatever Apple advertised them as". I agree that statement does not include the words "primary source", but in response I looked up what Apple says about it's products. Bottom line: is it appropriate to include (in WP) sourced statements about the storage capacity of an iPhone? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
No, the bottom line question was whether to include the sort of statement you want to make, which was answered, and the line below that is what to do about WP:IDHT. NebY (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
No. A request was made to add such a statement and I was trying to help. You don't want my help and that's OK, but don't try to make this about me. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I objected to your original source not because I prefer primary sources but because your source was an opinion piece (an editorial) with inconclusive numbers. If we can't find a reliable secondary source then a primary source about something unremarkable is fine (if Apple says it has 128 GB then that is a pretty unremarkable and safe thing to believe, but if Apple says it has a 500 GHz CPU then that is some quite remarkable and I would want to see an independent, secondary source). Stepho talk14:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
NebY made it very clear my contributions are unwelcome. I am reluctant to continue the discussion without a clear message to the contrary from at least one editor. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources, so objecting because something is not a primary source is no kind of argument that WP entertains. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Take your pick, all WP:RS, all using the capacities as reported by Apple:
And that was just a half hour of looking. None of them used gibibyte (or GiB), and none of them apparently felt the advertised capacity differences were relevant enough to discuss it in their reviews/comparisons. All of them either mentioned that Apple offered higher capacities (and then proceeded to use the Apple-provided values) or they simply listed the Apple-provided capacities in a comparison table. To be clear, these sources are only for the iPhone 12 Pro or Pro Max, there would be significantly more sources if this were expanded to all iPhones, iPads or iPods ever produced. Cherry picking one source out of dozens to find one that says what you want it to say is, as NebY said above, when we don't add that content to Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c10:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I am sorely tempted to take this to ANI, and would absolutely support anyone who did, as it is clearly a continuation of obsessive and disruptive behaviour, complete with abusive edit summaries like "if I could find a consensus of editors here who could read, that would be ideal". Since I am one such contributor, I'm struggling not to read this as a personal attack, and I have had absolutely enough of it. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm just following what our sources say, and they don't say anything about those units being deprecated by JEDEC as the claim was made at the talk page. There is also no consensus for the changes made. As to the claims of personal attacks, it's not a "personal attack" to point out that you're a liar. Maybe if you don't like that label you should stop being one? —Locke Cole • t • c14:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I see Dondervogel is playing the victim card because apparently being a liar (Wiktionary defines "lie" as [t]o give false information intentionally with intent to deceive.) is a problem for them, but the proof is in the diffs where they've repeatedly misrepresented the truth for their own ends: [18][19] (notwithstanding the claims of consensus for "deprecating" units without actually having consensus, or the distortion of reality one has to live in to push IEC units like they do). —Locke Cole • t • c15:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
@EEng and Tony1: Probably "ambiguous" is not the right word, but my view is similar with 2016 RFC about this: "It looks very unprofessional IMHO. Saving a measly two digits is not worth giving the appearance of using unnecessary shortcuts/slang in a respectable encyclopedia." However for sports two-digit ending years is fine for me because it also used widely outside Wikipedia.
There are some inconsistency. Here's the example after the 2016 RFC (for these example there is no discussion in the talk page):
2010–2011 Queensland floods (log 1log 2); the page initially moved from 2-digit year to full year because MOS:DATERANGE, then moved to 2-digit year because "consecutive year", then moved again to the current title because it's "preferred" by MOS.
Then we have to argue about what's a single event. The current (hard-fought) guideline does leave room for some inconsistency between articles, but I'm not sure that's such a big deal. We put up with that all the time in regard to knife-edge stylistic choices like this. EEng10:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
DATERANGE says articles may use 2 digits. But it is in italics and it says 4 digits are preferred. Therefore the DATERANGE was not a mandatory reason for moving the Indonesian article. Stepho talk10:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
My opinion is that DATERANGE is incorrect in preferring four digits for consecutive years, it should be the other way around, with two-digits perferred, per what I think is usual practice in sources elsewhere, and not just for sports pages. Unless there's a consistency required with other equivalent pages that cover more than two years. But, as noted, there doesn't seem a strong reason to relitigate any of this, so we should probably just stick with what we've got, which means largely sticking with the status quo and not making wholesale changes. — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Those page moves to two-digit years were in 2018, when MOS guidance was
Two-digit ending years (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years; (2) infoboxes and tables where space is limited (using a single format consistently in any given table column); and (3) in certain topic areas if there is a very good reason, such as matching the established convention of reliable sources.
The guidance is now stronger.
Although non-abbreviated years are generally preferred, two-digit ending years (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years; (2) infoboxes and tables where space is limited (using a single format consistently in any given table column); and (3) in certain topic areas if there is a very good reason, such as matching the established convention of reliable sources.[a] For consistency, avoid abbreviated year ranges when they would be used alongside non-abbreviated ranges within an article (or related pages, if in titles). Never use abbreviated years for ranges across centuries (1999–2002, 1999–02) or for years from the first millennium (886–887, 886–87).
Why do we need a list? How widely will we advertise the discussion - to all talk-pages of articles rthat might be deemed wrongly named? Are we ready for the consequences of drive-by changes to existing articles followed by upset and angry editors turning up here to change the list or remove it? Should it be of topics that can or topics that can't? How is any of that better than carrying on with something that's good enough? NebY (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Precisely. "No need to relitigate" means there's no need to add a list, or change anything about this at all. There's certainly no call for using 4 digit years for articles "outside this list", and I would strongly oppose any such change. — Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
That would take up extra space & be repeating double digits. Example: 1918–1919, would be showing 19 three times. Where's 1918–19, only shows 19 twice. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
In the line 0123 notation for octal is unclear. In prose use 1238. If needed for computer code samples, explain the prefix on first use., what is "the prefix"? If it's meant as a reference to the 8 at the end of 1238, that's not a prefix but something more like a suffix. (Judging by the computing sense of prefix, "123" could be described as a prefix, but if this is what is meant, it could be expressed more intelligibly by using another phrase like "explain the notation".) Our article says octal can be indicated by "a variety of prefixes, including the digit 0, the letters o or q, the digit–letter combination 0o [...as in] 073, o73, q73, 0o73", but if the guideline is meant as an exhortation to explain those on first use, it should actually mention one of them, IMO. -sche (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The leading 0 in 0123 is the prefix. I agree it's confusing, and that's why it is discouraged. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
0123 (with a leading 0) is how octal is used in the C/C++ programming languages. Computer geeks (such a myself) recognise it instantly but to everyone it is very, very confusing. As said above, the MOS recommends to not use that format. Stepho talk10:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The phrasing is a bit confusing. Could we follow the rest of MOS:BASE more closely with something like "For octal, the prefix 0 is unclear (0201) and other prefixes may be unfamiliar; avoid using a prefix unless it is needed for computer code samples, in which case explain the prefix on first use. In prose, use the subscript 8 (2018) or avoid octal entirely as a crime against nature."?
The change of example's deliberate. Currently, as a side-effect of using {{xt}}, ({{xt|{{base|123|8}}}}) 1238 may not be clear – on my screen, the bottom of the subscript 8 is alongside the bottom of the 3.
BP or YBP: In scientific and academic contexts, BP (Before Present) or YBP (years Before Present) are often used. (Present in this context by convention refers to January1, 1950.) Write 3000 yearsBP or 3000YBP or 3000years before present but not forms such as 3000 before present and 3000 years before the present. If one of the abbreviated forms is used, link to Before Present on first use: The Jones artifact was dated to 4000YBP, the Smith artifact to 5000 YBP.
Why does it use capitalization in "BP (Before Present) or YBP (years Before Present)" but not in "Write ... 3000 years before present"? It seems that a large portion of scientific literature does not capitalize this term in any context, so according to MOS:CAPS, the first sentence should use the lower case as well ("BP (before present) or YBP (years before present)"). I've nominated the article Before Present to be renamed to Before present based on these considerations, but this was met with a strong opposition from several editors, although they've failed to provide substantial evidence (see the discussion). Could anybody here help them to prove that it must be capitalized? Or we should indeed switch to the lower case? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I think the natural reason to prefer caps here is that "Before Present" doesn't have its natural meaning. It's not really before the present; it's before January 1, 1950. That discrepancy is less jarring if it's treated as a proper name. --Trovatore (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I think that's a bad recommendation if the intent is 3000 years before 1 January 1950. It would make sense if it meant 3000 years before the current date. --Trovatore (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the term itself is confusing, but it's standard in the field, and many (most?) sources don't capitalize it. I'd say that capitalization alone doesn't really suggest that "present" ≠ "time of writing", let alone some specific (yet arbitrary) date... — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't make that very specifically clear, no, but it does give the reader some indication that it's a term of art, as opposed to standard English words being used according to standard English semantics. --Trovatore (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I think, suggesting to write "3000 years before present" with linking the term not only "if the abbreviated form is used" would give a much better indication in all cases and without unnecessary capitalization. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Capitalising the term Before Present in keeping with its initialism is perfectly normal (cf Make America Great Again). But hasn't this already been discussed at great length and detail at Talk:Before_Present#Requested_move_4_August_2021? I realise no-one's agreed with you but it seems rather harsh to say "they've failed to provide substantial evidence" when much evidence has been provided and to pursue your point here without telling anyone there. NebY (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Capitalising the term Before Present in keeping with its initialism is perfectly normal — MOS:EXPABBR disagrees, saying "Do not apply initial capitals ... just because capitals are used in its abbreviation". Mitch Ames (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
IRight, initialisms are often in upper case even if the phrase they are the initialisms of aren't, such as CD-ROM for "compact disc read-only memory", VHF for "very high frequency" etc. There are also counterexamples, as we use "am" for "ante meridian" etc., but just to point out that if "before present" is not capitalized has no bearing on whether we use "BP" or "bp" -- and vice versa.
I can certainly write "before the present" or "about ten thousand years ago" etc. without capitalizing. Generally the 71-year difference between 1950 and 2021 is trivial and ignorable in the contexts we're talking about. Thus whether "ten thousand years before present" means "ten thousand years BP" (8050 BC) or just a shortening of "ten thousand years before the present" (7979 BC as of this writing) doesn't matter and nobody cares.
So I think from a purely technical point of view "Before Present" is not correct, just as "Very High Frequency" is not technically correct. However, form follows usage, and if people want to capitalize the phrase and name the article that way, it's OK I suppose. For my part, I'd let people write "ten thousand years Before Present" or "ten thousand years before present" or "ten thousand years BP (before present)" or "ten thousand years BP (Before Present)" as they like. They're all close enough to correct as makes no difference. The article has to have some name, so either capitalize it or don't -- either is fine.
I don't know as it's forum shopping exactly, as I think local consensus shouldn't necessarily override more general MOS rules and it's appropriate to bring a local discussion to the attention of the larger MOS community, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, small irrelevant correction: AM is an abbreviation for ante meridiem, not ante meridian. Here meridiem is the accusative of meridies, "noon". --Trovatore (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
This is another question, but frankly, I wouldn't mind. It seems that capitalitis developed around 2000, and before that "common era" was as common as "Common Era"... :–) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
BP follows from Before Present, just as AD follows from Anno Domini and CE from Common ERA. MAGA and VHF are poor examples, NATO and UN are better. The problem we have here is that, when 'Before Present' is being presented in the literature as concept in its own right, it most often capitalised; when the phrase is used in running text, that style is rare.
I am having difficulty identifying the change that Mikhail wants to make to the MOS here. Is it to propose that it should read
BP or YBP: In scientific and academic contexts, BP (Before Present) or YBP (years Before Present) are often used. (Present in this context by convention refers to January1, 1950.) Write 3000 yearsBP or 3000YBP or 3000years before present but not forms such as 3000 before present and 3000 years before the present. If one of the abbreviated forms is used, link to Before Present on first use: The Jones artifact was dated to 4000YBP, the Smith artifact to 5000 YBP.
as concept in its own right — MOS:CAPS says "capitalization is primarily needed for proper names", not "... concept in its own right". If you mean "proper name" (which has an entire article tells us what it means, so we know) it would probably be better to say so. Inventing new terms (that are not in MOS) probably won't help the discussion. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
We've already been down that route at Talk:Before Present#Requested move 4 August 2021 (including that exact quote from the MOS); it didn't help any because it just leads to the obvious question: "is it a proper noun"? If so, why? if not, why not? A general term is appropriate when discussing generalities but this is a detailed case that needs more precise wording that makes it status as a proper noun clearer. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
By "failed to provide substantial evidence" I mean that nobody claiming that "before present" is a proper noun could provide a plausible explanation why so many sources don't capitalize it. And those who try to separate "a concept" from "in running text" couldn't clearly demonstrate that this distinction really exists in the literature. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Mikhail Ryazanov:, if you look at the dates example, the MOS says this:
Note how the example of correct usage doesn't wlink Fourth of July. (Otherwise it would imply that every time you write the phrase "Fourth of July", you should link it?) The point of the MOS is to recommend (sometimes strongly) how text should be written; when to apply a wikilink is in a different cookie jar. So I think that the answer to your question is that the MOS as it stands is correct and consistent with the way that similar rules of the MOS are written. Of course if your RtM succeeds, the article reference will need changing. Does that help? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I see no reason to capitalise 'before present' (it's not a proper noun) and every reason to wikilink it on first use (unless rounded to the nearest 1000 years, when +/- 50 years produces but a small rounding error). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Agreed there is no reason to capitalize this, at least no reason that WP should care about. This is a classic WP:SSF: "I want to capitalize it because some sources that I prefer like to capitalize it." If it's not nearly universally capitalized in sources, across all genres and registers, then do not capitalize it on Wikipedia. This is the entire point of MOS:CAPS. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes: % or percent?
Earlier this month, Daniel Case changed the syntax of The Exorcist's RT approval rating from "83%" to "83 percent", citing MOS:%. Later, when I updated the Rotten Tomatoes data on the film, I changed it back to the percent sign for two main reasons:
The percent sign has clearly been established as a standard on Wikipedia; it's used in the example on Manual of Style for film articles, and is employed by our Rotten Tomatoes prose template. We even have twopages related to the subject which use the percent sign.
Frankly, I don't see why the suggestion in MOS:% should supercede the standard set by Wikipedia's film articles, especially given that MOS:% merely says that use of the word percent in non-scientific articles is common, not that it should be used. We should allow the shorter character to keep carrying the score. Songwaters (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
My point in doing that is that there's no clear exception written into MOS:% for this particular use. I can see some reasons why we might want to grant it, but that should be made explicit since MOS:% mentions specifically scientific and technical articles, articles where percentages are given a lot (usually also scientific and technical, but articles about past elections can also come under this) and data presented in aggregate form, such as in a table or chart. Compare how MOS:POUND makes an explicit exception for the issue numbers of comic books that aren't additionally grouped by volume. There should be some sort of consensus besides a norm at a particular WikiProject (which are not allowed to be different from core project policies or guidelines, except to be stricter, without consensus and a good reason) behind this because if we don't, then this same conflict is likely to happen again and cause much grief. I have found no discussion either here or at WT:MOSFILM that establishes consensus for this; indeed, it hasn't been discussed in this context at all. Daniel Case (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Why do we not just use % across the board? This would have the added benefit of commonality, as it would do away with the percent/per cent variation. --Khajidha (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
That's a nonstarter. It would be like saying we never, ever write meter, but always and only m. EEng13:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Just use "%", for concision. There's no reason to write out "percent" except in a direct quotation, and using the symbol obviates the "percent vs. per cent" fight. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The initial addition was made as the result of this discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1. As I said there, I don't think that the addition here is appropriate because cs1|2 does not determine how dates in article text are to be formatted. cs1|2 has adopted MOS:DATE as its standard for date formats. Help:Citation Style 1 § Date compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style lists the parts of MOS:DATE with which cs1|2 does or does not comply. In the table there, the format of quarterly dates, not previously specified here, is defined. For cs1|2, that is all that is required so the quarterly date specification here is not required unless or until it becomes necessary to specify a quarterly date format for article text. The addition to MOS:DATEFORMAT and MOS:DATESNO should be reverted.
Agreed. This guideline-ette (about quarters) certainly doesn't belong in the table, which is part of 2.2 Dates, months, and years. One thought would be to modify 2.5 Seasons of the year to be, instead 2.5 Seasons and other portions of the year (or something like that) and include this injunction there, but then there's another problem: although the specific phrasing, and capitalization, of the form First Quarter 2020 may be appropriate for citations, it's certainly not appropriate for general article text, which strengthens the idea that it doesn't belong in this guideline at all.So it seems to me that the mention at Help: (linked by Trappist above) is exactly the right place to touch on this. Second choice (distant second choice) would be something in 2.5, as mentioned. EEng20:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Any conventions about how to write quarter dates in citations, that is not equally applicable to body text, belongs in Wikipedia:Citing sources. Any conventions about how to write quarter dates that only applies within citations written with Citation Style 1 or Citation Style 2 templates belongs in the documentation for those templates. Looking at the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association and the Chicago Manual of Style I don't see any advice about quarter dates, either in the body or in the citations. Since there doesn't seem to be a widely accepted convention, I don't think this "Manual of Style" or the "Citing sources" guideline should offer any guidance.
We most certainly should not allow the tail to wag the dog by introducing a convention into the style guides just because of what the citation templates recognize. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Arguably those infobox dates are breaches of WP:OR. I looked in some of the article histories. The dates seem to be the results of searching at ancestry.com or freebmd.org / freeukgenealogy.org.uk and finding in which quarterly volume of UK records the death certificate's indexed. I think that's likely a breach of WP:PRIMARYCARE, in that the data found isn't clearly and unambiguously about the article subject (eg this page or the image you'll see if you click "View the Original" there for a Walter Langton has been applied to Walter Langton (footballer)). From that angle, not supporting such dates in the MOS is absolutely fine. NebY (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not entirely certain what you're describing is OR, depending on the reliability of the sources and straightforwardness of the "translation" -- you could imagine some vital statistics register in which dates are somehow "coded" (maybe the days of the year are numbered 1 to 365/366) and you have to look at a footnote or appendix to find out what the date really is. But supposing for the moment it's not OR, I'm more concerned about the desirability of reporting the conclusion in this inscrutable way. I mean, I know about Lady Day and all that shit 'cause I read a lot of Sherlock Holmes as a kid (the unschooled among you may with to consult Quarter days) but I expect even many young Brits today might not know what they are. And calling one of the old quarters "Q3" is... no, sorry. Saying "late 1875", or even just "1875", is good enough. EEng00:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@EEng: What is inappropriate about quarters? I understand the reason for avoiding seasons whenever possible as they are so ambiguous, but working in quarters in very common in the business world. Hawkeye7(discuss)04:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
See Quarter days -- they're not the modern business quarters. (As usual, religion makes things daft and complicated.) Even if they were, I think they're something of terms of art that shouldn't be sprung on people in the context of a 19th-century athlete's bio. EEng05:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
There are periodicals that date their issues that way. Our citation templates don't support those dates, though (and unless we want to allow free-form inputs, they shouldn't). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The quarters for UK births, marriages and deaths are simpler, at least in this period, eg a Walter Langton died in Doncaster aged 85 in July/August/September 1952. The OR, for me, is concluding that this is the same Walter Langton and not just the first one of an appropriate age that was found. NebY (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh, well that's definitely OR. But if you're right about the quarters being clean groups of three months, and (again) assuming the OR problem was overcome, the way to express the birth "date" might be Jul–Sep 1952, not Q-something. Though it occurs to me that might be misinterpreted as an unusually difficult labor. EEng11:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Ranma ½, which has not been corrected to use a consistent style
ASCII vulgar fractions seem rare in article titles, but I did find 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ⋯. It appears 1/16 is not available as a precomposed Unicode character.
On Talk:Ranma ½#Fraction in page title we discussed ways to use DISPLAYTITLE to make an ASCII fraction title consistent in appearance with {{frac}}, which is how the current MOS guidance indicates the title should be rendered in body text, like so: "Ranma 1⁄2". I've done this at Draft:Ranma 1/2 and it seems to work. (FTR, with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:{{NAMESPACE}}:Ranma <sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub>}}", in case the draft is deleted again.) An alternative proposed in that discussion was to simply leave the title as "Ranma ½" with a precomposed fraction. That raises the question of whether the MOS should be changed to make the article body consistent with the title.
Considerations:
Not all fractions can be expressed with precomposed characters. This seems to be the main reason the MOS advises against the use of precomposed fractions. A previous discussion affirmed that we use precomposed ½ in chess articles for simplicity, and because this is the only fraction needed for those articles.
Consistency. The existing MOS:FRAC does not enforce consistency against articles in different genres, but in general we do expect consistency in a given genre and article. I think this argues toward using precomposed fractions for body text in articles with precomposed fractions in the title, if not for all body text having to do with railroad gauges?
Searchability. Unfortunately, lots of search engines have problems with vulgar fractions. Because they can be written in a number of different ways, often engines will only return fractions found in the same format as in the search query, without normalizing so that all document representations can be found. Having inconsistent rules across Wikipedia might make this worse. In particular, Wikipedia's own internal search engine apparently can't handle precomposed characters in article and category titles: [21] One mitigating technique is to put redirects from other formats to the actual category or article.
Compatibility with non-Wikipedia documents. When copying and pasting...oof, yeah.
I'm not sure what the best reconciliation is, and if there are other considerations or opinions worth mentioning, so I'm starting a discussion here. To get things started, here are some possibilities:
1. For article and category titles, use precomposed fraction characters if available for all fractions in the title. Otherwise, use ASCII fractions. When using precomposed characters, make a redirect from the ASCII version to aid searches.
2A. In articles with titles or categories that use precomposed fractions, follow the above guidance and avoid precomposed fractions in the contents of the article.
2B. In articles with titles or categories that use precomposed fractions, use precomposed fractions in the contents of the article if the only fraction used is also the fraction in the title. Otherwise, follow the above guidance to avoid them.
2C. In articles with titles or categories that use precomposed fractions, use precomposed fractions in the contents of the article if all needed fractions are available. Otherwise, follow the above guidance to avoid them.
2D. In articles with titles or categories that use precomposed fractions, article contents can either use precomposed fractions for all fractions (if all are available) or follow the above guidance to avoid them.
I think 2A would be the easiest to implement; we're already most of the way there. The other options for 2 require "if X then Y else Z" rules, which make it considerably more difficult to automate compliance.
What is the problem? Why does anything need fixing? Why does there need to be a one-size-fits-all rule for all articles? The examples above appear to be optimum and do not need a MOS blessing. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Possibility 1, at least, is a nonstarter for science/mathematics articles. Neither precomposed fractions nor {{frac}}raised⁄lowered-style fractions should be used anywhere in those articles, especially not in such a prominent place as their titles. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I'm not entirely sure what the reasons were for instituting the existing MOS:FRAC rules, but I can say that an inconsistent typesetting looks unprofessional and is a signal to readers that they should question the reliability of the text, even if we've gone to great effort to fact-check article contents. Inconsistency can also lead to problems with searchability and compatibility, as noted above. It's currently unclear whether the existing MOS:FRAC rules apply to titles. If your preferred clarification is that MOS:FRAC does not apply to titles and they can do whatever they want even if that's inconsistent with the body text and other articles, then that would be a helpful note to add. -- Beland (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: OK, playing around with Draft:Ranma 1/2, it appears that {{sfrac}} does not work with DISPLAYTITLE, which I guess leaves Spin 1/2 as the article title for what is currently Spin-½. Is that your preferred outcome? The ASCII style isn't used elsewhere in the article, so it would still be inconsistent with the body text, but bouncing between the two science/math styles seems to be allowed by the existing MOS:FRAC rules. I can start the article move request process, though it would be helpful to have a rationale beyond simply "editor X says so". -- Beland (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The rationale would be "MOS:FRAC says so". It is a mistake to think of horizontally-formatted fractions as being ASCII; they are a perfectly normal way of writing formulas, having nothing to do with the limitations of ASCII (beyond the mere fact that they work in ASCII and other formats don't). There are lots of situations where a horizontal fraction is the correct choice in a non-ASCII formula, including in exponents in inline formulas like or fractions with tall numerators or denominators like . Anyway, another possibility would be to spell out the title, like "spin half". Pinging User:XOR'easter, who is more expert in mathematical physics and might have a better-informed opinion on the proper title of that article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Re "inconsistent typesetting", that's fine up to a point. Hoping for complete perfection any time soon is a distracting dream. For example, what would be recommended for Spin-½? The title cannot use 1/2. Should the article be butchered to make it consistent with ½? Should MOS be altered to point out the obvious, namely that exceptions exist? What about Naked Gun 2½ where your edit was obviously undesirable? That is a comedy film with a joke title and promotional material featuring typography best approximated with ½. What appears in the article should be settled with discussion/RfC on its talk, not some do-it-my-way MOS rule. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
One finds all three of "Spin ", "Spin 1/2", and "Spin-½" in the titles of academic works on the topic, but in different proportions. Searching Google Scholar for intitle:"spin-1/2" found around 5300 papers, a mixture of maybe 20% "Spin " and 80% "Spin 1/2" (judging by the first few hits). Searching for intitle:"Spin-½" found a much smaller but nontrivial number, around 300 of them. So to me the inability to use "Spin " and the MOS injunction against "Spin-½" are non-problematic; there's another alternative, clearly considered valid by the scientific community: "Spin 1/2". I don't think there is any requirement for consistency between vertical and horizontal fractions within math or science articles; they both mean the same thing and can be handled on a case-by-case basis as appropriate for the surrounding text. In situations where a fraction is used as part of a name, like the Ranma example, consistency considerations may be more prominent, because having the same mathematical meaning is less relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
OK, so if that gets moved to "Spin-1/2", here's a stab at taking into account the other comments above and what Graham87 mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Accessibility of precomposed fraction characters - it sounds like we don't care to impose any particular style on non-science/math articles, but that only some precomposed fractions are screenreader-friendly. If so, then maybe a small note in the section applicable to science/math articles, changing:
1/2 – markup: 1/2
to something like:
1/2 – markup: 1/2 (and this style should be used for article titles like Spin-1/2)
and a broadening of the chess exception to general guidance, changing:
Do not use precomposed fraction characters such as ½ (deprecated markup: ½ or ½). Exception: In special situations such as articles on chess matches, a precomposed ½ may be used if that is the only fraction appearing in the article.
to something like [edited to spell it "screen reader"]:
Do not use precomposed fraction characters such as ½ (deprecated markup: ½ or ½).[1]
Except: If ¼, ½, and ¾[2] are the only fractions needed, they may be used in an article body, article title, or category name, maintaining typographical consistency within an article where possible. (Examples: Ranma ½, chess notation, Category:4 ft 6½ in gauge railways.)
References
^Some precomposed fractions may not work with screen readers, and not all fractions are available precomposed.
^These three characters are in ISO/IEC 8859-1 and work in screen readers.
Numbers as figures or words > non-native English speakers
I published this statement and it got reverted: "Figures and numbers tend to be more easily understood than words by non-native English speakers." and my brief summary was: "maybe not the best place but this fact must be stated in a quite visible place in MoS!".
I didn't think it was a substantive edit to the page, nor it should reflect "formal" consensus. It could just have been moved at the most appropriate place on the page!
This is obvious for people who read in a language other than their mother tongue: "the reading of numbers as words needs translation for understanding", while "the reading of the figures and numbers allows an instantaneous comprehension without possible error (as most parts of the world use Arabic numerals)"
Unless you speak German, if you switch to [de.wikipedia.org], the only things that you will understand instantaneously are years and figures/numbers. If you speak German, try switching to Finish: [fi.wikipedia.org], Danish...
I also don't see what the relevance of the addition was. Less proficient nonnative English speakers also understand simple words more readily than more formal vocabulary (there's always Simple English Wikipedia for readers learning English), but neither of these observations is really relevant in the style guidelines. Doremo (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The advice you wish to give contradicts the guidance immediately below it. The example you give of switching to a wiki in a language we don't understand (German, Finnish, Danish) is something of a reductio ad absurdum. They're not written to be understood by people who don't understand the language they're written in, and we wouldn't ask that of them. This one is also written to be clear and accessible for people who can read English, and that does include good English practice of using words rather than numbers in various situations as described in the MoS. Do you think any of the specific guidance in this style manual is wrong? NebY (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I admit my examples were "a proof by the absurd", but I wanted to highlight the fact that "figures/numbers" are always understood. So is my statement right or false: "Figures and numbers tend to be more easily understood than words by non-native English speakers." I just asked for a notice, nothing more! I have not suggested changing the MoS rules and will not do so. However after reading the MoS, I think that this notice could be useful in some cases like: "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred)." When two solutions are "good", my statement would ease the understanding by non-native English speakers (and it won't hurt the native speakers, nor the "orthodoxy of the rules"). It is then up to the editor (knowing its audience) to make the final choice. If its audience is (in full or in part) non-native English speaking, it will act as a "reminder" for him.
Recently I worked on Template:About_Wikipedia (please take a look at: [before]). My aim was to ease the understanding by all readers (both native and non-native English speakers). Improving the template consistency with the page where it is mostly used, namely Wikipedia:About (500,000 page views per month) will also benefit all readers. — Antoine Legrand (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
You've been editing two months, and have made essentially no edits to actual articles, and yet you're already running around telling everyone else what's what. The fact that you changed [22] "Comment on content, not the contributor" to read "Comment on content, not the editor" quite beautifully epitomizes why you should stay 1000 miles from questions of English style. Come back when you can show you understand why what you did in that edit is wrong, and in the meantime do some real work -- you know, editing articles. EEng19:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Date Formatting for non-English speaking countries
An IP range has taken it upon themselves to change date formatting for a large number of European BLP's and topics. Rather than getting into an edit war with them I wanted to seek some clarification. There seems to be a grey area between what is being implied in MOS:DATETIES that date format's should only changed based on ties to an English speaking country, rather any date format associated with every country. Given this, it seems that MOS:DATEVAR applies which states we shouldn't be changing pre-existing formats for an article? Do we want this to continue and should such changes be discouraged? Seddontalk14:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Seddon's summary of the existing practice, and I think this practice should continue. Further, I argue that the use of the words "January, February..., December" is part and parcel of the English Wikipedia date formats, and the use of any non-English words constitutes a different date format. For example, I consider "9 septembre 2021" to be in a different date format from "9 September 2021". Jc3s5h (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
For clarity, the IP is changing one English format to another but for articles relating to countries whose primary language is not English. Seddontalk15:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
DATETIES talks of English speaking countries. The only English speaking countries in Europe are those that form the UK (ie, England, Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland). The edits appear do not appear to be to UK articles. Other countries (eg France) might speak English very well but English is not their official language. Therefore, in this case, DATETIES does not dictate a particular choice but leaves it to the article creator(s) to choose from th 2 common styles of English dates - as long as it is consistent within the article. DATERET then says to not change it unless there is consensus to change it. Therefore, changes not by consensus are against policy. Stepho talk15:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
You should probably add the Republic of Ireland to that. According to Republic_of_Ireland#Languages, English is the dominant language although Irish is the "national language". Which date style is most common in the Republic and hence should be preferred for relevant articles is a different question. English is also technically an official language of Malta, although Maltese appears to be the primary language. This would not affect what date order is used in articles that involve other countries however.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Dondervogel 2: given the scale of the policy breach and the multiple warnings the user has received over multiple years, I simply mass rollbacked the ip's contributions since they almost entirely consisted of DATERET breaches. My reversion shouldn't be seen as precluding any permanent changes to any articles date format coming about via the usual consensus mechanisms either on an articles talkpage, or any change in policy that might come about from the discussion below. Seddontalk21:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
It could be useful to add a clarification at the bottom of MOS:DATETIES; for example, "Note: Date formats in articles on topics with ties to a non-English-speaking country are not determined by the dominant language spoken in that nation. (see Retaining existing format)"
Begging the question
The question and discussion above both seem to ignore a point that needs clarification itself: Why does MOS:DATETIES refer to English-speaking? What does the language have to do with the date? Shouldn't DATETIES say, Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation? I'm probably missing something, but we're not going to use septembre instead of September, so the date format, ISTM, is entirely independent of the language. Right? Canada's a bit tricky, but we can decide on a case-by-case basis if there are strong regional ties to, say, Montreal or Quebec (suggesting dmy) or just go with dmy in general for all strong-tied Canadian topics. Why do we need to specify "English"? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits)17:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Your proposal Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation is the current text. I'm guessing you meant to suggest Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation.
There are many date formats available. There are too many old WT:MOSNUM discussions about this to easily search, but I think you'd find some comparisons of the formats used in Chinese languages, in Japanese, in Indonesian and others, and that's ignoring variations within countries (when the UK has some high-profile exceptions to DMY but the US military does use DMY, we're bound to run into the problem elsewhere). Switching between them would leave articles on Washington, London, Beijing, Tokyo, Jakarta etc seriously inconsistent. Instead we've talken the approach that this is the English-language Wikipedia and it uses the English-language conventions, rather than converting to other language's conventions.
Alternatively, this is a working truce and, if you like, a concession by the majority US editors to let UK editors have their own format for UK articles. Having given that inch, must they give a mile too? NebY (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
A simpler answer: In non-English countries the date format often uses non-English dates (month names in the local language, non-Arabic numerals for numeric parts of dates, or non-Gregorian year numbering systems). We don't want to encourage people to use those kinds of dates in English-language Wikipedia articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I am with JohnFromPinckney here. There is no particular reason to favour what is essentially an American ENGVAR in articles where British ENGVAR is clearly more common in the real world. This is particularly true in countries in Western Europe which generally follow the same format as British ENGVAR in their own languages anyway and so naturally adopt it in translation. For one example, Deutsche Welle uses the DMY format in its English broadcasts (random example) and Radio France Internationale does the same (another example). —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I generally use DMY on new articles with ties to European countries regardless of native language. I would be ok with language clarifying that strong national ties to DMY or to MDY should be used to select the date format, as long as it is phrased as concerning only the choice between those two formats and not on other issues like choice of calendar or what words to use for months. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Since this is an English Wikipedia, I think using an English equivalent of the date format most commonly used in that country would make sense. Which would mean: Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular country should generally use the English equivalent of the date format most commonly used in that nation. For example, "18 septembre 2021" (France) and "2021年9月18日" (Japan) would become "18 September 2021" (DMY format) and "2021 September 18" (YMD format) in English respectively. Also, since the majority of English Wikipedia editors are not from the US, I doubt US editors are "letting" other editors use different date formats. -Rajan51 (talk) 3:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
If the topic didn't have any particular ties to an English-speaking country, then most English readers presumably wouldn't have a particular preference. Pick one and follow MOS:DATERETAIN.—Bagumba (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I doubt such a presumption would work, especially since articles with strong ties to a country are likely to draw a larger audience from that country and they would have a preference. I don't see why a German or Indian reader visiting English articles related to their respective countries should be expected to accept a different format when there is no such expectation from British or American readers despite everyone using the English Wikipedia. And if readers from other countries have no preference of formats when it comes to articles related to the country in question like you say, I don't see why there would be an issue with using the English equivalent of the country's date format in those articles. -Rajan51 (talk) 5:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
If the hypothetical German is uncomfortable with or confused by common English format conventions, he or she is probably better served by using German-language Wikipedia. Doremo (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Why make someone uncomfortable when you can simply provide the appropriate format? If that can be done for viewers from "English-speaking countries", why not everyone? After all, everyone is reading from the English Wikipedia. In the above case (like most others), the appropriate format would be DMY, the most commonly used English date format. -Rajan51 (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
If you're advocating "the most commonly used English date format", that's MDY because American English speakers are about 70% of native English speakers and MDY is also found as an option in British English (e.g., it is used by the very British The Economist). Doremo (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia, not Native English Wikipedia. American English speakers account for less than 30% of the total English speakers worldwide. Considering that the DMY format is more commonly used by English speakers outside the US, it appears that DMY is the most commonly used English date format. -Rajan51 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I reckon that native English usage is the best guideline for decisions on English style choices, not nonnative English usage. Doremo (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Intentionally ignoring non-native usage of English, especially when it concerns articles related to relevant countries goes against WP:BIAS guidelines. I reckon for English-speakers from all countries to be treated equally irrespective of whether they are native speakers of English or not. -Rajan51 (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:BIAS is someone's essay, not a guideline, and there's a reason for that. English-speakers from all countries are being treated equally: they're presented with articles in English. EEng17:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh for fuck sake, you're really going to make this about people being "uncomfortable"? Get real. Living with little variations like date formats is part of living in the big, interconnected world. We've got enough trouble as it is without 287 separate debates on, like, what the national date format is in Mongolia so we can know what format to use in Ghengis Khan. EEng18:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
No such debate or research would be needed to find the national date format of Mongolia, since it is already known to be the YMD format. We would not have to have such debates/discussions for any country since they are all available at Date format by country#Usage map. The formats can also be found at the Wikipedia pages for the country in question through the reference(s) on the country's Wikipedia page. And if "living with little variations like date format is part of living in the big, interconnected world", there is no reason for certain countries to be exempted from such little variations. -Rajan51 (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Huh. Thing is, that article says that Comoros uses DMY, but I recall from my visits there that they also use MDY. How are we going to resolve that, since the article gives no citation for its claim? Should we start doing our own research? That would be a great use of editor time! That article also says that Brazil uses dd/mm/yyyy, which the English Wikipedia forbids under any circumstances. What do we do there? Ghana is listed as yyyy/mm/dd or dd/mm/yyyy or m/d/yyyy, so what should the article Nana Akufo-Addo use, since we don't use any of those formats either?I notice now that you're suggesting (a few posts up) that we use e.g. 2021 September 18 for Japan-related articles; in other words, you not only want to change the rules for picking among the two date formats we now use (DMY and MDY), but also want to expand the list of formats we use. That will happen over my dead body. EEng19:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Almost as if there's a tag on the article that says "this article needs more citations". Indeed, a fruitful effort would be to improve that page so that we could be sufficiently educated for this discussion. ;) Izno (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Most countries predominantly use the metric system, so that should not be as big of a problem. Besides, changing units is different from changing date formats since local units are not known to people from other countries unlike date formats. -Rajan51 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Since the ISO format does not lend itself well with English like the DMY or the MDY formats and could lead to ambuguity, I retract my proposition to use that format. But for countries like Brazil, the solution seems quite simple: use the equivalent of the dd/mm/yyyy format, which would be the dd/mmmm/yyyy format. Similarly for countries with the mm/dd/yyyy format, the equivalent would be the mmmm/dd/yyyy format. And if we're not able to find the appropriate format for a country (such as Comoros) with citations, we can just stick to the current guidelines until we find it. -Rajan51 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
And so we're back to the 287 research efforts and 287 debates, and a guideline page with a table to keep track of the 287 results. All for what? Forget it. EEng12:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Because those are major English-speaking countries. You're in way over your head on this, and you're the second editor who's shown up in the last week who, having made essentially no contributions to the project, is suddenly pronouncing how things should be. The guidelines we have are the result of much discussion and controversy, and that delicate equilibrium is not going to be disturbed to satisfy your idea that Balkanization is a good thing. EEng17:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
It is amusing to see you contradict yourself when you claim above that "English-speakers from all countries are being treated equally" and then say that the special guidelines made for the countries mentioned above are because they are "major" English-speaking countries. Why does being a "major" English-speaking country warrant special treatment? And what exactly constitutes a "major" English-speaking country? The number of English-speakers in the country? The percentage of English-speakers? It seems to be ambiguous. And the changes being proposed would only involve sticking to appropriate date formats for articles related to the respective countries. They are not going to affect each other, so your analogy to Balkanization seems weird. Besides, there is no religious rivalry between the date formats of the countries for which the proposed changes will take place, nor is it going to cause partition-related tensions of any sort like Balkanization does. Regarding the change in guidelines, we would probably need a new consensus. -Rajan51 (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I doubt such a presumption would work ... They are the existing guidelines. Feel free to establish a new consensus. Incidentally, English being an official language of India, Indian preferences could be applied to related articles.—Bagumba (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I do not know the process for establishing a consensus yet, but I will look into it. Regarding English being an official language, is that the criteria being used to determine if a country is considered as an English-speaking country? I have not seen a consensus for the definition of "English-speaking country" yet. If there is one, I would like to see it. -Rajan51 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
If we really want to ask questions like that, why isn't the real question "Why do we allow two major date formats (plus ISO)?"? Ditch the American format (I'm an American, before anyone calls me otherwise). Most of the world probably should be using that format, and we even have a cut-out for the rest-of-the-world format for the US military in the MOS today. It's not too far from that just to have the one format, no? ;)
Being marginally less rhetorical and considering what one might be able to get consensus on, I guess we could further restrain the American format to "American topics may use MDY. Everyone else should use DMY" +- ISO (because we haven't cut the exceptions for ISO out yet). I have 0 belief that you can sell "pick a format" to anyone who shows up to the consensus discussion on the topic, because there are wacky, wacky formats out there, most prominent being variants on YMD and a handful of YDM. Izno (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
restrain the American format to "American topics may use MDY. Everyone else should use DMY" +- ISO . . . Seems reasonable. Though using the ISO format with English does seems a bit awkward but I don't mind it that much. And since you brought it up, we need to identify when exactly the US military format (DMY) comes into effect and takes precedence over the American MDY format. Does it follow the year of adoption? Is it limited to military vehicles? What about military relations and exercises between the US and other countries? What about the wars that the US has been involved in? These are just some of several such questions that would need to be considered. -Rajan51 (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Isn't the ISO format YYYY-MM-DD, not DD-MM-YYYY? The former is what I use whenever I remember to give a damn (although I will admit I'm not very diligent about it). Another thing I do sometimes is writr out dates like "2021 Sep 19", so that it is obvious what I mean to hamburger, leaf, and lime alike. jp×g21:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Fully concur with User:EEng on this issue. Also, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that MDY should be restrained to American topics. For better or worse, American hegemony means that in numerous fields of human endeavor, many important developments occurred first in the United States (especially after 1945), were documented in MDY, and are described in that format in most published sources. WP core policies reflect a preference to follow, not lead. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how any of that 'strong disagreement' is remotely relevant to that suggestion. If they are indeed strongly tied to the US, then they can use DMYMDY dates. What certainly doesn't matter is were documented in MDY, and are described in that format in most published sources. We use our MOS, not anyone else's, to determine whether a date should be a certain format. Izno (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The clause of being "strongly-tied" to the US also raises the question of what happens when the article is strongly tied to one or more other countries as well. For example, should articles like South Korea-United States relations, France-United States relations and Cold WarNuclear arms race use the MDY format? I would reckon using the DMY format since such articles are not solely related to any single country. -Rajan51 (talk) 5:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
But then that comes back to the issue raised by User:JohnFromPinckney at the very top--whether it's strongly tied to an English-speaking country. This is the English Wikipedia. As with so many topics, the majority of sources in the English language on those four topics were published in the United States in American English in MDY format, due to the gigantic volume of published output from U.S. research universities, think tanks, and government agencies. (Guess where the modern think tank and research university were invented.)
It looks like you are trying to argue in favor of DMY on topics even when the vast majority of published sources are in MDY, which is going to irritate and drive away American English editors who were actually trained to write properly. Then WP will be left with trolls, vandals, and even worse. We already have enough of those.
All four of those articles are strongly tied to the United States by virtue of its hegemony. The only example you give where it's a close call would be the Cold War, but the U.S. and the USSR were clearly the lead players, and obviously, the USSR was not an English-speaking country. Allowing the presence of other aligned and nonaligned powers in that conflict to drive article formatting would be a "wag the dog" situation. In contrast, the article on France–United Kingdom relations (or any other article where the United States is clearly irrelevant or peripheral) would be good candidates for DMY. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
In case you missed it, the discussion above over the past few days has been whether the guideline should actually be giving preference to an "English-speaking country". This is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. And as @Izno has pointed out, Wikipedia uses it's own MOS, not anyone else's to determine the date formats to be used on Wikipedia.
As you say, all of the articles I had mentioned are strongly related to the US. The key distinction is that the US is not the only country to be strongly tied to each of those articles. Those articles are strongly tied to multiple countries. The point being made is that countries like the USSR or France "not being an English-speaking country" should not mean that their date preferences can be simply ignored when they are strongly tied to the article. In the case of the Cold War or France-United States elations, using the changes to the guideline suggested above, since both countries are strongly tied to the article, neither should be given preference in determining date format, meaning we would default to the DMY format.
And no, American editors are not going to be "driven away" by the date formats. Nor would their hypothetical departure mean that "WP will be left with trolls, vandals, and even worse." I hope you realise how offensive it is to insinuate users as trolls and vandals purely based on their nationality. -Rajan51 (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I sure wish we'd never gone down this TIES path at all. Look, let's remember the basic principles of ENGVAR (my paraphrase):
Have a consistent variety for a given article
Don't change it without consensus. If you can get consensus to change it, fine; otherwise leave it be
As a special case, we don't want the Abraham Lincoln article using the "colour" spelling, or the Winston Churchill article using "color". If an article is about a very specifically "American topic", "British topic", etc, use the appropriate spelling.
I don't think we ever really needed the special case. It shouldn't be too hard to get consensus to change the spelling of colour in Abraham Lincoln. But the arguments on this exceptional carve-out have grown to dominate the conversation as a whole. Let's not repeat the error with date formats. --Trovatore (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the anecdote about spelling and the varieties of English. But I would like to point out that the variety of English and the date format used in a country are unrelated in most cases. I reckon we should use the suggestion by @Izno given above and consider the possible multiple associations to determine if we should use the MDY format or default to the DMY format. -Rajan51 (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I reckon differently. I think we should take the simple approach: Pick a format for a given article and stick with it. If there's a consensus to change, then change it. There's no need to parse all these intersecting nationalisms. --Trovatore (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
All these intersecting nationalisms will nullifyneutralise each other under the proposed changes. Having a guideline for all articles seems simpler than getting consensus for articles one at a time. -Rajan51 (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
You know what, let that point go for the moment — the more salient point here is that the proposed "guideline for all articles" requires deciding what an "American topic" is, and that will just lead to endless lawyering. Let people decide at the article itself. And keep in mind that it really doesn't matter that much which they pick. --Trovatore (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
If an article is strongly and solely tied to the US, that would be considered American. Would it cause confusion? Yes. Does a similar problem already exist (example: between American and British topics)? Yes. Would it be better to stick with a single date format, one that is the most commonly used by the English-speaking world across the English Wikipedia? Yes. Would we be able to get a consensus on that? I would expect a 0.01% chance of that happening. -Rajan51 (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
that the proposed "guideline for all articles" requires deciding what an "American topic" isThis already happens under the current guideline. Izno (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
It would be better if we dropped that part of it. The proposed change seems to be in the direction of making the problem worse. --Trovatore (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
It's not. As I've explained twice below, if an article is strongly tied to more than one country, we revert to the DMY format. There is no need for a debate over which format should be used. -Rajan51 (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I think Rajan51 is describing what he/she understands as the proposal, not current practice. That said, it's still a bad idea.
Look, as a software guy, I'm sympathetic to an extent. Big-endian and small-endian have some logical explicability; "middle-endian" is kind of weird. But it is the preference, for whatever reason, of a significant part of the Anglosphere, which is what en.wiki serves. I'm not on board with ghettoizing it to "specifically American" articles, even if we could figure out which ones those are, which history suggests is problematic.
While en.wiki does serve the Anglosphere, we need to keep in mind that it serves the rest of the English-speaking world as well. And it must be noted that getting rid of DATETIES will most likely create inconsistencies among closely related articles, not something I would suggest. -Rajan51 (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Will you just stop? Really, I'm going to say it again: you have almost no experience editing articles, and therefore no credibility in such a discussion. The historical reason things are as they are is this: way back in the stone age, there was a fight over whether to standardize on MDY or DMY, period, universally. The main combatants were US editors and Brit editors, being together by far the bulk of all editors. (Canadians provided the coffee and doughnuts, as they still do today.)[1] It became clear that there would never be agreement on one or the other; to make peace, therefore, and so that those up in arms could feel they'd both won something, the current rules were established: American articles use American dates, Brit articles use Brit dates, and everything else uses whatever date was used first in that article. (A little more complicated than that, but that's the basic idea.) That way everyone got something, and peace has reigned ever since. But now and then we have to spend time debating whether an article subject is "American", or "British", and we are not fucking going to make that a debate on every single article all the time -- is John von Neumann a Hungarian article, or American? Under the current rules it doesn't matter, since it's already in American date format, and he's clearly not British, so that ends the debate. Under your plan we have to argue about it. This is never going to happen. People need to learn to get along with either format.I have a friend who thinks that since a handful of countries have nuclear weapons, it would be fair if all countries did. A normally intelligent person, on that subject he's an idiot. You seem to want to do something similar with date formats. EEng19:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
. . . That way everyone got something . . . Clearly non-British and non-Americans didn't get anything. . . . we are not fucking going to make that a debate on every single article all the time -- is John von Neumann a Hungarian article, or American? . . . Under your plan we have to argue about it . . . Nope. He's not strongly and solely tied to a either country. If there are strong ties to two countries, we default to the DMY format. It's that simple. An idiot would probably be someone who thinks a different date format would cause is the equivalent of causing the destruction of the world. -Rajan51 (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Clearly non-British and non-Americans didn't get anything. – I was hoping you'd say that, and you walked right into it. What I said is those up in arms could feel they'd both won something... that way everyone got something. What was needed was to bring peace among the superpowers on an issue that doesn't substantively matter anyway. Creating hundreds of new, additional debates doesn't bring any more peace (in fact the opposite), and since the issue doesn't substantively matter anyway, it doesn't improve anything else either. So not only a net negative, but an absolute negative.
If there are strong ties to two countries, we default to the DMY format. It's that simple. – Uh, no actually, and thus we find that your inexperience, and consequent misunderstanding of the rules, disqualifies your from participating intelligently in this discussion.
the equivalent of causing the destruction of the world – It's not consequence that's equivalent (or analogous, anyway), it's the idiocy (since you force me to come right out and say it).
For the last time I urge you to pay your dues by actually editing articles for a few years, then come back with a more mature understanding of the way things are and why. I won't be responding further.EEng20:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
. . . What was needed was to bring peace among the superpowers on an issue that doesn't substantively matter anyway . . . It matters just as much to anyone else as it does to Britons and Americans. Just because they were the only ones up in arms, does not mean English-speakers from all other countries can be ignored.
. . . Creating hundreds of new, additional debates doesn't bring any more peace . . . The proposed rules only reduces debates. When an article (such as United Kingdom–United States relations or John von Neumann) is strongly tied to more than one country, we revert to the DMY format. There is no need for a debate over which format should be used.
. . . consequent misunderstanding of the rules . . . In case it was not obvious enough, I was talking about the new proposed rules that has been mentioned above, not the currently existing rules. -Rajan51 (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
References
^Here's a joke: NATO is planning it's Spring maneuvers, and the various spheres of responsibility are being assigned. America is scheduled to provide the high-tech weaponry. Britain will handle intelligence-gathering. Germany will field most of the ground troops. Canada will bring the coffee and doughnuts.
Rajan51 said "that the variety of English and the date format used in a country are unrelated in most cases", but I think we could reasonably consider the date format to be a part of "the variety of English". WP:ENGVAR says "... date formatting (September 20, 2021 vs. 20 September 2021) is also related to national varieties of English". Mitch Ames (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
. . . I think we could reasonably consider the date format to be a part of "the variety of English" . . . I guess you could in the UK or the US. Most other countries use different hybrids of the two varieties, so a universal direct relationship between the variety of English and the date format used would be hard to make. It would be simpler to just keep the date format an independent issue, which is what MOS:DATETIES does and it states: For any given article, the choice of date format and the choice of national variety of English are independent issues. -Rajan51 (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Out of all the countries where English is the first language, the date format is either DMY or MDY. All other formats are for countries where English is not spoken as the first language. English wikipedia sticks to English spelling and grammar - so it makes sense that we stick to the date format used by native English speaking countries. Otherwise we may as well use dates like 2021年9月20日 in Japanese articles. Or should that be 平成33年9月20日 when expressed in emperor years. Or another date if using the Japanese lunar calendar. Likewise, Chinese calendars differ (both China and Taiwan have different years from us and each other), as do Hebrew calendars, as do many other calendars. How far down the rabbit hole do you wish to go?
As mentioned above, going in the other direction and forcing a one-size-fits-all solution is almost universally rejected. It has been suggestion many times. Americans reject a DMY always format and Brits reject a MDY always format. As an Australian, I would be unhappy about having to use the dreadful MDY format. Americans have a similar opinion of DMY. Even the DMY for American articles and DMY for the rest proposal will spawn endless debates about whether a tenuous link to America is enough to flip it to MDY. The current rule works strikes an uneasy but workable balance in this cold war situation. Stepho talk15:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been about having the date formats in English, not other languages. No one is advocating for representing dates in other languages, nor is anyone advocating for the use of non-Gregorian calendars. The point is that the English date formats used by the English-speakers from countries that are not native English-speaking countries cannot be ignored, especially since there are more non-native English speakers than native English speakers, which is what the current rule does. Given that the most common date format used by English speakers across the world is the DMY format, the proposal suggests using the DMY format (in English) for pages that are not strongly and solely tied to the United States.
DMY for American articles and DMY for the rest proposal will spawn endless debates about whether a tenuous link to America is enough to flip it to MDY Assuming you meant MDY for American articles, the proposed guideline is that an article can use MDY provided it is strongly and solely tied to the US. If an article is strongly tied to the US and at least one other country, we switch to the DMY format. -Rajan51 (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
It's not gonna happen. You're of course free to make it a formal RFC if you want to try. Otherwise please quit hogging the page. --Trovatore (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
If we must have a preferred format (bad idea, but if we must), it should probably be MDY, actually, I suppose. After all about 2/3 of native English speakers are American. Sure some consideration should be given to non-native English speakers who use the English Wiktionary. Some. We don't know how many there are, we don't know how many of those use MDY anyway (not a lot, but surely some), and we can't know how much weight we should give to non-native speakers -- maybe full weight, maybe not -- because that's a matter of opinion. Is is enough to balance that 2/3 of native speakers are American? Can't say for sure, but probably yes. Barely. So since it's ~50/50 we should not have a preferred format. But if we MUST, I think the 2/3 American is the key fact and so the American system would be it, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
"we should be more concerned 'English Wikipedia readers' (our audience), not 'English language speakers'"[citation needed][personal opinion][sez who?]
And 40% =/= 0%. Even if you do want to weigh ESL readers as one-to-one with native readers (very reasonable, but arguable -- they have their own wikis, are by definition bi-lingual at least (most English speakers speak only English and can't go to another wiki), and I bet they don't reciprocate), this is a good date point for using both depending on circumstances (whether choice of article creator, national ties, coin flip via random.org, or whatever), not for using the DMY system exclusively as was suggested above. But OK, I'll modify my point: if (for some unfathomable reason) we feel we MUST settle on a single format, it should be decided by coin flip. Herostratus (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
. . . for using both depending on circumstances . . . not for using the DMY system exclusively as was suggested above. In case you did not read the full discussion, the proposal is to use the DMY format for all pages except when an article is strongly and solely tied to the US, in which case the MDY format will be used for the article. This clearly means we would be using both formats depending on the circumstances of national ties. -Rajan51 (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
What is the rationale for this vast expansion of one format at the expense of the other? Our usual philosophy when we have multiple styles is not to pick winners and losers but rather to allow variation as long as everything is consistent within each article. What good reason is there for making date formats exceptional and prescribed? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Our usual philosophy when we have multiple styles is not to pick winners and losers but rather to allow variation as long as everything is consistent within each article. That does not seem to be the usual philosophy since winners and losers are already being picked, as the existence and implementation of MOS:DATETIES shows. The rationale behind the proposed change is to ensure articles related to countries that are not covered under the current MOS are not left out and to ensure the removal of the existing bias. -Rajan51 (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
To me this comes off as "my nation got left out when we were being nationalistic so we need even more nationalism to make up for it". No. No, we don't. We need less nationalism, not more. Many topics on Wikipedia do not have nationalistic ties and we should not assign nationalistic ties to them by default; we should leave them untied. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Well said! More is less and less is more. We don't need more rules. I always thought MoS retaining existing styles was supposed to avoid petty fights over styles. Masterhatch (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Use DYM unless the subject is "strongly and solely" tied to the United States. This is partisan. The guy above said that 40% of readers are American. That's reasonably close to half.
Besides which, who is more likely to read Les Invalides? A French person? They already know about it. Maybe Americans read it more. I don't know. But Japanese battleship Kongō and very many other other articles not "strongly and solely" tied to the United States are read mostly by Americans. And I mean Feldspar or Mitrulinia or Eleazar (High Priest) or Sodium hypochlorite or Green or Comparative linguistics etc etc etc etc -- these are not "strongly and solely" tied to the United States, so you're saying they should use DMY. That sounds partisan and Britcentric/Eurocentric to me and I don't support that, no.
Is the current situation broken? Seems like it's kludging along OK like so many things here. I believe the de facto rule is "you have wits, article creator, do as you think best -- we trust you. That's how the Wikipedia was built! And give the same courtesy and trust to other editors -- don't change existing formats to your personal preference (and if you do you will probably be rolled back and maybe scolded). With an exception for articles strongly tied to one country, such as places, and like that". Right? Not broke don't fix. Herostratus (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@Herostratus:: they have their own wikis, are by definition bi-lingual at least (most English speakers speak only English and can't go to another wiki) – this is a massive oversimplification. It neglects that, other than the major-language Wikis (French/German/Russian/Spanish etc – and often even these), most other-language WPs are orders of magnitude smaller, both by pages and depth of content, than en-wp. Certainly when it comes to topics that are not primarily related to that specific language/country/culture. So it's not remotely uncommon for speakers of English as a second language to use en.wp as their primary WP; for example, I recall reading a social media post by a Lithuanian guy I follow, saying that pretty much the only time he looked at lt.wp was to find information about Lithuania-related topics he couldn't find on en.wp (and then, the topic was typically obscure enough that he often couldn't find it even there). South Asian and African countries are great cases in point – only a tiny minority of Nigerians or Indians speak English as their L1, but a huge proportion of Nigerians and Indians use English extensively, in exactly the sort of use cases that an encyclopedia caters for. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I personally agree with you, I was just pointing out that it wouldn't be madness not to. But anyway, even so, if 40% of our readers are American (I'm assuming that's correct), that leave 60% not... but some of the those 60% use MDY (Canada often, the Philippines (100,000,000 people and English an official language and in wide use)), and Japan and China use neither system so put them aside... it's too close to 50-50 to say "Well for the discovery date of a comet of course we will use DMY". Herostratus (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
... I'm not seeing that as telling me "Well, for let's say the date of the discovery of a comet, obviously we are going to use DMY". Herostratus (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Hyphens in fractions
Regarding this edit, is there any consensus on hyphenating non-adjectival fractions? The Chicago Manual of Style has "Simple fractions .... are hyphenated in noun, adjective, and adverb forms. ... She has read three-fourths of the book", etc., and WP articles largely seem to follow that format (e.g., "two-thirds of the population," "two-thirds of reported infections," etc.). However, some online style guides recommend no hyphen for noun fractions ("do not hyphenate fractions used as nouns", "when the fraction is serving as a noun, there is no hyphen," etc.)—which could create occasional ambiguities ("The pianist played two thirds", "He drank two fifths", etc.). If there is consensus on hyphenating fractions used as nouns, I'd suggest expanding the example at MOS:FRAC to read "Spelled-out fractions are hyphenated: seven-eighths of a book, a seven-eighths share" or simply changing the text to always hyphenated. (This would also have the advantage of not requiring editors to parse out whether a particular fraction is nominal or adjectival.) Thanks. Doremo (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Not hyphenating noun fractions may be partly a BrEng thing, or Chicago may be lagging, but it's certainly common practice and not usually ambiguous. Even in your examples, context will often help ("He drank two fifths of cheap bourbon" vs "He drank two fifths and Amnesia drank the rest") and ultimately it's the writer's job to avoid ambiguity, not the style guide's. NebY (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I suspect there are variations in how US/UK/others write fractions. I have wondered about the following.
two fifths of cheap bourbon is an unfortunate example for this discussion because, in that context (involving bourbon of any grade), the two fifths isn't a fraction any more than two quarts is a fraction in two quarts of milk. EEng02:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Well... they are and they aren't. A "fifth" or a "quart" is a particular unit. But those units are defined as particular fractions of a gallon (1/5 and 1/4, respectively). Unless you are talking about the 750 mL size that has replaced the true fifth (which was very slightly larger).--Khajidha (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, duh, any unit of measure is defined somehow, usually as a fraction or multiple of some other unit. That's got nothing to do with this. Fifth, like quart, is itself a unit in its own right, and when you say someone drank "two fifths" of liquor, you're not talking about a fraction of anything. You're talking about two of some thing. The very fact that we even have to discuss this reinforces my point that it's a most unfortunate example to use for what we're really discussing. EEng05:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I mentioned the thirds and fifths mostly as a joke; they are no more fractional than, say, "The runner won three firsts and two thirds." However, these non-fractions do orthographically contrast well with the fractions two-thirds and two-fifths. Doremo (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Anyhow, back to the original question: MOS:FRAC currently seems to indicate that all spelled-out fractions should be hyphenated with no exception mentioned for function (adjectival, nominal, etc.): "Spelled-out fractions are hyphenated: seven-eighths." Should this be made more explicit (e.g., "All spelled-out fractions are hyphenated: seven-eighths." or "Spelled-out fractions are hyphenated regardless of function: seven-eighths." or "Spelled-out fractions are hyphenated: seven-eighths, seven-eighths of a book, a seven-eighths share.") to clarify what seems to be both actual practice and already general WP practice? Or is the current phrasing clear enough? (Or is ambiguity and editorial preference preferred?) Doremo (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, when an article is written in American English, whenever a conversion is given the American measure should be given first, in prose, and the conversion should be given second, in parentheses. Vice versa when written in another English variety. In terms of best practice, I don't remember ever seeing it done differently, until recently. My questions are: what, if anything does the MoS say about this? And: if the MoS were to say something about it, what do others think it should rightly say, if anything? Perhaps it's a matter of style to be left to an editor's discretion, or perhaps there is a best practice that ought to be followed. I am curious to see what others have to say. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure what you've described is what is generally done. Of course, scientific articles are an exception, as SI units are the norm even in the US. I assume some sports articles would also be exceptions (very few events are held to US customary standards anymore). There's probably a few other logical exceptions.--Khajidha (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
It is related to the choice of English dialect, but the rule is distinct.
For non-scientific topics, as a starting point:
Where a topic has strong ties to the United States, it should put US customary units first.
Where a topic has strong ties to the United Kingdom, it should put SI/metric units first in some circumstances and imperial units first in other circumstances (as described in MOS:UNITS).
All other topics should use SI/metric units first.
Articles with strong ties to the US will use both US customary units and American English. But some articles that use American English do not have strong ties to the US and should put SI units first. Similarly, some articles that use British English will put imperial units first in some circumstances (that depend on how those units are actually used in the UK). Kahastoktalk14:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
As Kahastok says, MOS:UNITS is clear and stable. It ignores the particular variant of English in which an article was first written and thus is more robust and leads to greater consistency. I can't imagine gaining consensus to flip Parisian distances to miles and heights to feet. Mansonelliasis to inches, or Moon to miles, tons and degrees Fahrenheit. NebY (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I agree and it wasn't my intention to suggest anything drastic. In fact, MOS:UNITS provides a good answer to the questions I had. I did mean to say an article with strong national ties, and I meant to express standard conversions like meters to feet, gallons to litres, and mph to kph for example. I appreciate the replies, and did learn some things.--John Cline (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Addendum - in case it makes any difference at all, the article I happened across is written in British English, it has strong national ties to the Crown, and it mostly converts feet to meters, giving the feet first in prose and the metric equivalent second in parentheses. It seemed odd to me and I started to open a discussion on the Talk page to suggest it should be the other way. Then I thought I'd better make sure it wasn't just my own preference at play, so I looked to the MoS but didn't find anything helpful Then I asked here and being shown MOS:UNITS was very helpful. The only thing I'm not entirely sure about is under what circumstances such an article may correctly give the feet first, in prose, and the metric equivalent second in parentheses. I do have a feeling that I'm glad I didn't start that discussion on the article's talk page. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I have found this confusion arising before, e.g. I recall in a history article (unrelated to US history, I mean) which was written in US English, other editors would get their wires a wee bit crossed and insist that because the first tie-breaking contribution was in US English, the article had to stay in US English per the MOS (correct, per WP:RETAIN) and thus measurements had to be given in the format "US customary (metric)", as though it were an article with WP:STRONGNAT to the US (incorrect). I've encountered similar confusion with editors thinking that the primary units are determined in a WP:RETAIN-like style, by whatever arbitrary decision was made by the first person who made a tie-breaking contribution to the article in that regard; this is clearly not how WP:UNITS works, but I had a memorable encounter with someone swearing blind that some distance in Ukraine must be given as "miles (kilometres)" rather than "kilometres (miles)", purely because that was the current style. The only thing that made him change his tune was discovering that the first contribution in the article's history to give a distance gave it in the metric-first format. Which is of course irrelevant, but he was absolutely insistent that WP:RETAIN applied in that case, even though it did not.
A closely related confusion arose from the sentence The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another – editors would sometimes insist that this means because two styles might both be permissible in the abstract, they were therefore both permissible for any specific article, and thus changing between them (even when one was explicitly favoured by the MOS and the other was proscribed, in the relevant context) was impermissible. I wonder if it might be worthwhile to insert an explicit clarification somewhere in WP:UNITS or MOS:CONVERSIONS that rules such as WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN don't apply here? Archon 2488 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
If we change guideline-defined style to guideline-permitted style, I think that would fix it. Problem is: if it's based on an Arbcom ruling we better start by seeing what that ruling actually says. EEng01:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd argue that it should be superfluous, because reading the current sentence as meaning "the first tie-breaking editor's contribution in one MOS-defined style [even if they didn't know it; even if the MOS has since changed] is sacrosanct and cannot be changed" makes no sense, because on this reading it would largely neuter the entire MOS, at least when it comes to distinguishing between when different styles are to be used. If all defined styles are equally permissible, why bother giving explicit guidance as to when each is to be used? But the fact that it has sometimes been taken to mean this suggests it probably wants a little clarification. Archon 2488 (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Not a good idea - far too simplified, as the above shows. Another problem is the measurement of artworks' dimension, which is always given in cm by art historians & museums, which we normally follow. American & sometimes British museums often also give inches etc, which is fine, but the cm dimensions should come first. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
every computer program has its regional settings for a user, with date format, measuring units. above @Sdkb: responded on "format of date tags should be a user property, not a server property" that it is a Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals. would have some links where such a setting in the user preferences was discussed, for both, data format, as well as units of measurment metric vs imperial? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
For date formats it has been shown that it is not possible for a computer to change back and forth between mdy and dmy formats in running text without creating punctuation errors.
As an example, suppose the date format is blindly changed by a computer without considering proper punctuation.
Original sentence: On 4 July 1776 the United States declared independence.
Changed sentence: On July 4, 1776 the United States declared independence. (There should be a comma after 1776.)
In the example you use, the problem is trivially solved by including a comma after the date, regardless of the format used. Since neither of your versions contains a comma, I am uncertain why you find them inconsistent. On my reading, that is the problem there; scripts cannot fix human inability to punctuate. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Counterexample for your hard and fast rule: "The United States declared independence on 4 July 1776." We certainly don't want a comma after 1776 and before the period. Personally, I'd love it if you can find a way to do this - but it's non-trivial. Stepho talk22:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
"If the character immediately following the date is a period, do not insert a comma"? I am sticking my neck out a bit here, I appreciate, but you will have to try harder than that. In any language I've ever used, that would be a trivial piece of string manipulation and conditional logic. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
What about dates at the end of a table entry that can be terminated a newline or a vertical bar.
Even more fun for distinguishing 1 July 1999<br> and 1 July 1999</i> - ie some trailing HTML tags require a comma and some require no comma.
Dates followed by a template will be even more fun because new templates get added every day and you don't know which ones require commas and which ones don't.
The real reason there will not be automatic date formatting is that it breaks the caching required to efficiently deliver HTML. Besides, it only applies to logged-in editors who have bothered to set a preference, not to the majority of readers. Johnuniq (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
The fact that the Premier League website uses metric units does not mean that it is appropriate for us to put metric units first. In fact, discussion at this page has specifically and repeatedly found consensus against using whatever units happen to be used in a specific source.
hahaha, thanks kahastok, besides finding the manual of style, i learnt another one of wikipedias 1001 rules now - a community authorized general sanction. what a word. :) my first impression was that some "make amerika great again" movement of 70 year olds flipped erroneously alex mowatts height. tbh, i was embarrassed that i did not check before "fixing" 3 others, that "mattythewhite" has no relation with US style white supremacy. embarrassment and irony aside, metric in footballers height seems to be general in many UK sources, besides the premier league site itself. bbc, guardian, espn, transfermarkt use metric. in rare cases, they copy wikipedia, like englandfootball. others, which we usually do not cite, use inch, like the sun. then there are ones who call it scoccer and inch, like bleacherreport. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
People are not expected to know of every general sanction, which is why we require that you be notified. You have now been notified, you know that there is a rule and you need to abide by it.
That said, an editor with over fifteen years' experience is expected to know that accusing other editors of racism based on their user name is a severe personal attack and entirely inappropriate.
In reality, as you demonstrate, usage in the sources varies. I would also note that citing individual articles from news sites is not a good way of inferring a general policy. It is not difficult to find examples, forexample, fromtheBBC, where footballers are measured in feet and inches. It is better for Wikipedia to aim to be consistent with the units that British people are actually likely to use. Kahastoktalk11:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
You are correct that it is not remotely unusual for UK sources writing for a UK audience to use modern units of measurement. However, the absurdly conservative local consensus here requires us to pretend that UK readers are happy with a door (or literally anything) being 1.8 metres tall, but not a human. For reasons that defy rational explanation and are vastly more abstruse than the theology of Aquinas, the Holy Spirit of Measurement Illiteracy itself descends from on high and strikes UK readers with a peculiar and otherwise unique metric amnesia, as soon as a human height (but not a kangaroo's height) is mentioned. You will understand the Mystery of the Holy Trinity well enough to explain it to a three-year-old before you crack this one.
Anyhoo, this situation is an artificially maintained political stalemate, and as bizarre and unjustifiable as it is, it is unlikely to change soon. Mainly because the conservative old sticks-in-the-mud will reliably emerge to scream blue murder any time their treasured illusion that everyone on this island is as ignorant as they believe them to be is called into question. And for what it's worth, you're also expected to believe that the only source worthy of consulting on this question is some creepy old Australian dude's right-wing rag – bear in mind, UK press is consistently found to be the least reliable in Europe (indeed, we are explicitly forbidden from including certain such grubby publications as RS here), so it's extremely questionable why UK newspapers should be trusted at all on something so contentious. Ultimately, it doesn't matter too much. Ensure that real units of measurement are presented, by all means, but rattling the Luddites' cages over unit order is frankly not worth it most of the time. They won't be around forever, anyway. For now, keep the peace and improve the encyclopedia. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't know where that comes from, but it actually matches WP:UNITS pretty closely. I mean, where they have both systems in the same box we separate, and we don't get into jogging or vegan milk. But basically, it's all there. Kahastoktalk19:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
where does this consensus come from @Archon 2488:? intuitively if i read feet in a piece of text it does not look so strange as an author has his style. but in tables, or in WP infofoxes it looks weird, as you barely see it. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The consensus (if it can fairly be called that; some might see it as more analogous to a DMZ) has arisen as a compromise between three factions. One would acknowledge that we live in the 21st century – indeed, that Wikipedia has existed in no other – and that using units of measurement that are not anachronistic would be kinda-sorta sensible. Especially given that many reputable UK publications do so, with no attempt to convert into 19th-century-speak (which, notably, is not true of WP, and never has been, as we do continue to accommodate people who think it's actually 1835 and the Northwest Passage is yet to be explored), and without compromising their political neutrality in any way.
The second would assert something to the effect that one particular snapshot (namely, a rightwing newspaper's interpretation, from circa 20 years ago) of the incoherent harlequin hodgepodge of units that different groups of people in the UK might use, for different reasons, in different circumstances, with a wide variety of personal biases, and without any real understanding of how these systems work, is actually an ersatz "system" deserving of respect in its own right. In much the same way that WP gives no time to homeopaths, I think we can put this to one side without further comment.
The last faction would have us pretend that whatever progress occurred in the past century actually did not; its pitiful protestations against its inevitable abandonment by civilized humanity remind me of a wonderful article by a talented (albeit not really in an academic way) tho really problematic polemicist, describing the death of a notorious American charlatan: "It is so far “left behind” that almost its only pleasure is to gloat at the idea of others being abandoned in the same condition". Archon 2488 (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The argument made above is essentially that anyone who has a preference that does not align with Archon - explicitly including editors here who have disagreed with him the past here - are throwbacks to the nineteenth century, deeply stupid individuals with no place in civilised society and no reasonable right to an opinion or to have their preferences taken into account. People who use reliable sources such as the BBC and The Daily Telegraph - both of which have a policy of using imperial units first in UK contexts to a far greater degree than our current policy - are untrustworthy Luddites "who think it's actually 1835 and the Northwest Passage is yet to be explored" and who are no better than WP:FRINGE conspiracy theorists.
If that is not series of gratuitous insults against other editors and against a large proportion of our readers - "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities" - then it's difficult to see what is. Kahastoktalk11:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
My final comment here, for the OP's benefit. You'll see above the emergence of a circular argument that frankly should not start and I will nip it in the bud by not participating in it. Some editors will take everything I write about this subject personally, when in fact I pointedly avoid such editors, even when they directly reply to me and make comments that could be read as trying to bait me, such as by misrepresenting my position. Even if all I'm doing is stating the history of this discussion as I understand it, in a context where someone who is new to the issue has explicitly asked for such an explanation. If other editors have a different summary they wish to present, they are free and welcome to do so. And OP is of course invited to peruse the archives of MOSNUM and related talk pages for themselves to form their own opinion. But the crybullying and claims of disruption – literally what has been disrupted by my simply stating an account of events, that is clearly informed by my personal opinions and which others won't agree with, yes, but is also informed by literally years of participating in and observing these discussions, after having been asked to do so? – are a bit much. Ironically, this stuff is also a major reason why the UK units situation will not progress out of its current stalemate any time soon.
Regardless, the point is that the UK units situation won't change any time soon, because it's a complex political stalemate. OP now knows that. They know why I believe the situation has arisen. How much they want to learn for themselves about the reasons why it happened is up to them. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
thanks a lot everybody for the excellent insight, which made me smile a lot sometimes, much appreciated!! coming back to the original question, do i interpret the outcome of the discussion correctly: 5 people do not mind make a proposal to ammend MOS:UNIT to allow metric for footballers (@Archon 2488:, @NebY:, @John Maynard Friedman:, @Dondervogel 2:, ThurnerRupert), and 1 person is not favourable (@Kahastok:)? if so, how is the process? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
No, that's not a correct interpretation and it's disturbing that you'd suggest it was. I hope that you are returning to this only because you have not considered how unrealistic it would be, even if it was desirable, to make the height of footballers a special case and because you have not reviewed previous discussions here either. You say the above has "made me smile a lot sometimes", but this is not a game. NebY (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
According to a favourite quote of mine, all reality is a game. And yes, the UK units nonsense is indeed quite the farcical game. Especially, perhaps, when an outsider who doesn't really understand the complex social dynamic emerges to join the fray: hilarity is bound to ensue. But I would again advise the OP to recognize that MOSNUM doesn't live in the 21st century, for reasons that are complex (and perhaps not amenable to rational explanation, which is aye kinda "disturbing" but it is what it is) but unlikely to change any time soon. It is a sort of tragicomedy I suppose, that we can tell UK readers that a dolphin they spotted when sailing off Mull was 1.7 metres long, and expect them to understand that, while also finding the suggestion that some sporty dude is 1.7 metres tall pornographically outrageous. Yes it is illogical. Yes, so is life, half the time. Yes, if you accept this, you might as well believe that people walked on water and brought the dead back to life. But it is what it is, and the community sorta requires you to accept it. There are other ways to improve WP, and I do honestly suggest you focus on those. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@NebY:, a game? the link you sared is hilarious, "how brits measure" :) :) if you write "don't you see how unrealistic it is even if it would be desireable?": does this mean you desire it or you don't? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
CURRENT: the primary units for personal height and weight are feet/inches and stones/pounds;
PROPOSED: the primary units for personal height and weight in running text are feet/inches and stones/pounds;
the reasoning and arguments are given above, and in the manual of style itself. in scientific contexts as well as statistical contexts, presenations in lists and tables, presentation in the UK follows the UK standard, even for personal heights. in running text both variants, imperial and metric, do exist and are proven over time. the proposal aims to let tables conform to standard, and not touch the proven way to write text in wikipedia. votes can be basted with "support" "oppose". no comment, or other comments are counted as "i do not care". --ThurnerRupert (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Couple of comments here. First, you don't just get to ignore the objections raised above, this is not a vote, and you don't have the right to dictate how people respond. What we do here is discuss, not vote.
Given that both (or, in the case of weight, all three) systems need to be in all of these locations anyway, I see no justification for inventing a split between tables/infoboxes on one hand and prose text on the other. On the other hand, this proposal is likely to lead to substantial internal inconsistency on affected articles and may lead to editors choosing less optimal presentation styles (i.e. making the articles worse) in order to push their unit preferences. In reality, it is not normal for British people to randomly switch measuring systems in this way. Given no benefit and these significant costs, I would oppose this proposal. Kahastoktalk15:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
No, because it’s a distraction from the tide of change that WP will eventually have to face when sufficient younger editors, brought up with the metric system, get the UK standard changed to kg and metres. Already the UK NHS uses the metric system, and has done for some time, as do UK schools, and many other public bodies. The next change - which may be some, but not many, years off, will be to metric measurements for British English articles, as almost every Brit under the age of 50 will have learned at school. Miles will take longer, because of all the road signs, but ‘stones’ is already a foreign land to the young. How long the Americans will defend the ancient regime thereafter (along with their backwards-written date format), who can say? MapReader (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
No. Would leave the MOS unclear and unhelpful, prescribe articles that lurch between different orderings of units, offer swapping presentation formats as a route to using preferred unit odering, deter changing presentation formats for fear of inconsistency, and trigger vast numbers of article amendments to the alarm of page watchers, bringing MOSNUM into disrepute. Our MOS is a guide for editors, not something to be changed whenever an editor finds it inconvenient or sees an opportunity for an argument. NebY (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
While there are innumerable ways in which the UK units section could be improved – not least, by a shredder – this is not one of them. It's ad hoc, illogical, and adds yet one more pedantic distinction to one of the most controversial and hair-splitting sections of MOSNUM. (As a case in point, there was a highly memorable discussion about milk several years ago – whether bottled or in plastic cartons, imported or domestic, cow, goat, or plant, delivered or store-bought – all over a section of MOSNUM that is virtually never used: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the UK units section of MOSNUM, till all be fulfilled." You really had to be there.)
Anyway, it's still not clear to me, speaking as someone who quite openly advocates a serious revision of a horribly outdated part of the MOS, what this specific proposal is motivated by or exactly what problem in article-space it is intended to solve. Nor is it clear that you're actually reading other people's replies to your comments. Neither the pro- or anti-metric camps are much interested in it, and I'd suggest dropping this as a prime example of a snowball in hell. Archon 2488 (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
ThurnerRupert, I've been biting my tongue until now because I suspect you're an enthusiastic young person and I don't like to dampen that enthusiasm. But you need to slow your roll. Your phab task will unquestionably be turned down, but only after a lot of busy people, whom we desperately need doing actually important stuff we've been awaiting for years, have wasted time attending to it. Even if the facility is added to Mediawiki, it will never be enabled here at enwiki. I seriously urge you to withdraw that request now. You've got almost zero experience here and the charm of watching someone new wandering about bumping into the furniture is rapidly wearing off. EEng19:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
"enabling" needs a second thought imo. it should be so that it does not get in an editors, or readers way. it should be so that what you expect to see as a user comes out of it. currently what comes out of these templates is ok for you, but not for me - otherwise we would not have had this discussion, and others would not have discussed the matter before. we "only" need to pay attention that i do not try to make you love what i love, and the other way round. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 06:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
User:ThurnerRupert, your gyrations here are not particularly useful; you seem intent on ignoring the fact that there is not only no consensus supporting your proposal, there is absolutely no support for it at all (apart from your own, of course). Further, you seem to be stubbornly focused on ignoring all of the feedback you have received, even when you respond to it. You are aware of UKU, you must know about WP:FORUMSHOP, and I hope will look at Consensus decision-making and Collaboration, and maybe re-read and the WP:DETCON part of WP:Consensus. Your repeated comments here are not persuasive, and they are, I think, only impressive in the wrong way. It's time to drop this suggestion for now, consider withdrawing your phab ticket, and reconsider the ideas after you have spent some more time learning how English WP works. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits)15:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
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.
Good start, UU|ThurnerRupert}}. Now withdraw the phab request. Those people have better things to do. EEng04:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Six-digit numbers
Would writing the six-digit number "250,000" as "250 thousand" be considered acceptable per MOS:NUMERAL? It does seems to be a "format" used quite a bit project wide, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be being used. Would "Two hundred fifty thousand" or "Twenty-five hundred thousand" be preferable instead? How should this be treated when dealing with ranges of numbers? Is "250 thousand to 2.5 million" acceptable? Would "250,000 to 2.5 million" or "250,000 to 2,500,000" be better? My question has to do with some wording used in the lead of Eurasian eagle-owl. It was changed from "250 thousand to 2.5 million" to "250,000 to 2.5 million" which seemed odd to me. I reverted the change, but it was contested. I self-reverted since I may have been wrong, but still would like some other opinions on the matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I do personally find mixed numerical-verbal number formats as you describe stylistically needlessly clunky. I would bear in mind that we're writing for people who can read English and are not afraid of English words, and that we're writing in a medium that is not constrained by limits on ink (I am reminded of a possibly apocryphal story about how much money the Soviet Union would have saved if they had agreed upon a spelling reform that would have dropped the second "м" from "Коммунизм"). Archon 2488 (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
When we look at a range, we want the numbers to be easily comparable. The straightforwardly MOS:NUMERAL-conformant "250,000 to 2,500,000" is easily seen as a 1:10 range, unlike "250 thousand to 2.5 million" or "250,000 to 2.5 million". "Two hundred fifty thousand to twenty-five hundred thousand" is hard work for the reader, who when they've finished reading the second number may have to re-read the first one before doing the math and may lose a power of ten somewhere in the process, and unsurprisingly breaches MOS:NUMERAL (Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words). NebY (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
i'd oppose "there are a few if any .. would be preferable". such flowery language is not clear enough to mere mortals if it is ok or not ok. a foot note threatening with an immediate block i find not welcoming--ThurnerRupert (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I approve of the current language (without threats to summarily block people). I'm also totally cool with "250,000 to 2,500,000". Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, I've had some sleepless nights wondering if I was too quick to add something addressing a problem which might not qualify as a MOS-worthy under the criteria I originated: WP:MOSBLOAT. Here's the new text -- thoughts?
In the specific case of thousands, there are few if any situations in which e.g. 5thousand or 250thousand would be preferable to 5000, 5,000, or 250,000. [Link to footnote]
[Footnote:] And positively don't write 5hundred or 25hundredthousand.
Again, I'm only belaboring this because I'm usually the MOSBLOAT tsk-tsker and I don't want to seem like a hypocrite. EEng23:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Well -- and continuing in an abundance of caution -- "it came up" isn't sufficient. If we used that as our criterion, MOS would be as big as the encyclopedia itself. Again, see WP:MOSBLOAT as linked above. `EEng03:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I rather like the rule, but it might be bloat, it might be unclear (is "69.5 thousand" also deprecated?) and it might be overreaching. Taking those examples, we seem to have "250 thousand" in 172 articles and "5 thousand" (including "69.5 thousand" etc) in 493, comparatively few of which look quite as bad as the range example that started this. Maybe it's not a serious problem. NebY (talk) 09:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
This stuff is starting to sound overly prescriptive to me. At the end of the day, we cannot detail and proscribe every possible way to write badly, and most people who are going to write as badly as to commit stylistic criminalities such as "250 thousand" are either not going to know about the MOS or not care about it. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
MOS has its merits as a guideline, and deserves to use simple language, crystal clear. as the ones who master english do not tend to get such things wrong. "in the specific csae of thousands, there are few if any situations in wich blabla" should in my opinion read: (mostly) write 250'500 instead of 250.5 thousand". --ThurnerRupert (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's unrealistic and impractical for any guideline (MoS or otherwise) to list every possible thing anybody could possibly do wrong. It's appropriate and reasonable for the MoS to explain the rules with good examples and some likely bad examples. Something like "250.5 thousand" is so far away from a predictable variant that we ought not waste time and space on it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits)17:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, I took the snarky footnote (about not writing 5 hundred or 25 hundred thousand and so on) out a while back -- I'm sure that was just too much. But that leaves In the specific case of thousands, there are few if any situations in which e.g. 5thousand or 250thousand would be preferable to 5000, 5,000, or 250,000. And I think I (who added it) am going to remove it, per MOSBLOAT. It's not that I think it's overprescriptive -- if this became a recurring fight among editors, MOS should tell them what to do i.e. don't write 5 thousand -- but I see no evidence of that. There's a very small number (in the scheme of things) uses of such yukky forms project-wide, and adding something to MOS isn't going to fix that, because those editors probably aren't looking at MOS.Also: [28]. EEng17:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate all of the feedback here. I was just looking for a bit of clarification; I wasn't looking to change the MOS. My question though now has to do with all of the cases where "250 thousand" is currently being used in articles. Should these be cleaned up with a link to this discussion being added to the edit summary to help explain why? Should they just be left as is? I'm not suggesting any particular person needs to do the clean up or that it needs to be done in a particular time frame. I'm just asking whether it should be done at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Just leave it, except in articles which you're working on for some other reason. If you go on a campaign 90% of people won't care, 9% will thanks you, and 1% will rip your face off. Not worth it. Everything gets fixed sooner or later. EEng22:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Right at the top the question is kind of answered: " It does seems to be a 'format' used quite a bit project wide, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be being used" I mean, yeah it does? Rules codify general behavior, so you can't have a rule prohibiting what editors have 'voted with their feet' for. That's not how it's supposed to work.
As to "I do personally find mixed numerical-verbal number formats as you describe stylistically needlessly clunky". Fine that you do personally not write that way.
Again with "My question though now has to do with all of the cases where '250 thousand' is currently being used in articles. Should these be cleaned up? If 'all the cases' means a lot of cases, then no, you wouldn't be cleaning them up, you'd be imposing by fiat your preferred format on other editors work. ˙ʎʇɹıp ʎllɐnʇɔɐ ǝɹ,ʎǝɥʇ ssǝlu∩ In which case yeah. And if just a few cases, then that too is different. That means that those are outliers and common-accepted-practice is not to do that. In which case, a rule to codify that is OK. If it happens enough to need a rule then I'd have to wonder, though.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 23:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Bot task for adding MDY tags to U.S.-related articles
The following discussion 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.
WITHDRAWN
This does not seem to be going anywhere, so I'm withdrawing it for now. Many of the objections do not seem supported by any policy/guideline, but I'll refine the idea to ensure even better that only eligible articles are targeted before considering pursuing it further. {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Hi all! I've noticed that many articles for more obscure United States topics lack date tags, which results in them defaulting to the ugly YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g. 2021-10-17). MOS:DATERET permits changing the format when a topic has strong national ties to the topic, so I've been running an AWB task recently to add {{Use mdy dates}} to any article that's in a subcategory of Category:United States (to 3 levels) and does not already have a date format tag. It seems to be working well, so I'd like to seek consensus from you all to convert it to a task for my bot.
The initial list of articles that will be affected is here. From my checks, almost all of these are U.S.-related. There are a few exceptions from times where the category tree is broken or weird edge cases (e.g. Lake Saint Francis (Canada), a lake in both the U.S. and Canada), but there's no real harm done in those (MDY will be an improvement over YYYY-MM-DD and anyone who wants to switch to DMY can easily do so). Overall, I think this task will improve lots of U.S.-related articles by converting them to the date format American readers generally expect. Thoughts? {{u|Sdkb}}talk23:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
No, no, no, DO NOT LIKE. Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction, but my hair stood up on end when I read this propsal. I do not think it's either necessary or desirable to go through and change these (or any large group of) articles to use some other format. For one thing, there's MOS:DATERET, whereby I (frankly) doubt your bot can determine what "strong ties" are (I see, looking quickly, 007: Quantum of Solace, +1 Music and Airheart, for example), combined with the general unhappiness by many editors that so many articles use mdy at all. I advocate adjusting date formats, if at all, on an article-by-article basis. The proposed approach would lead to gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits)02:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. I don't agree that the international date format is ugly (I mean it is the default for a reason) and I am very unsure of the wisdom of using automation to effect mass change like this. Archon 2488 (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
That's a perennial proposal that's way beyond the scope of anything here. Regarding the ugliness question, I think it's very safe to say that Americans find it objectively easier to comprehend dates in MDY format than YYYY-MM-DD format, and I hope this doesn't get snowed out before any U.S. users (i.e. the population generally reading these articles and who this will therefore affect) have the chance to comment. Regarding "change", MOS:DATERET is already on the books, so these articles are already eligible to be changed; a bot would just automate the task. {{u|Sdkb}}talk09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Support - Personally I find yyyy-mm-dd the most appealing of formats (not ugly at all), dmy a good second best and mdy an inept, illogical format. But that's a personal opinion. I have no objection with using mdy on US specific articles. I assume that the instances of yyyy-mm-dd are in references, they should not be in prose. Stepho talk10:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and I'd personally argue that YYYY-MM-DD is the most readable and natural format in references and tables, and in other places where it is necessary to be concise (and where you expect information to be abbreviated). Requiring dates to be written out (e.g. "May 12, 2019") in such situations is a little precious, and needlessly verbose. In all circumstances, the ambiguous abomination that is the stylistic atrocity of "5/12/19" should be utterly forbidden. And in any case, I don't really see why it matters what the article is about. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand what the OP means by "defaulting" to YMD. YMD is never used in general text. EEng13:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Correct, we're not discussing use in the body of the article but the output of e.g. the |date= parameter in the {{cite}} template; without a relevant localization tag (like {{Use dmy dates}}) this presentation will default to the ~ISO date format. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I did some experimenting and AFAICT what's actually happening is that without a {Use [etc] dates} tag the citations come out in the date format used in the source text, not that the dates are forced into YMD by default. I don't see what's urgent about making sure every article calls out a format explicitly, or that American articles in particular need that. I predict a mass effort along those lines will lead to trouble. EEng17:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
My understanding is that currently, the only thing the tags affect is dates CS1 citations. In low-traffic articles (i.e. the majority of what this will affect), the dates do follow the source text, which often results in inconsistent formatting. So that's another reason it's better for articles to have a date tag. {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Update: With some help from the folks at the query request page, I'm refining the list to remove articles that are categorized under other countries in addition to the U.S. This will get rid of entries like 007: Quantum of Solace that caused concern above. I welcome further comments, but please keep them PAG-based – MOS:DATERET already provides that articles with U.S. ties may be changed to MDY, and if you disagree with that, this is not the place to challenge it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. My understanding is that WP:DATERET has been understood to mean that if the article has strong ties to the US, and is not military related, dates in the body of the text should be changed to MDY. In citations, all publication dates, and access and archive dates in DMY should be changed to MDY. But access and archive dates in YYYY-MM-DD should remain in that format. In addition, I strongly oppose using this page to discuss the issue; it should have been brought up at WT:Citing sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
"Citing sources" allows the use of any consistent citation style, including styles which disagree with provisions of "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers". Thus it is better to discuss format requirements of citations in that guideline's talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, I see WP:CITESTYLE. I'm withdrawing this as it's going nowhere and if I decide to pursue it down the road I'll bring it up there. (Regarding your opposition, your understanding of DATERET differs from what it currently says, so if your understanding is the common one I'd suggest proposing a change to the wording.) {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose I am sure there are certain categories of topics that are definitely US centric to require US dates but I disagree that any article under Category:United States necessary meets this metric. A more narrower aspect (such as anything dealing with the US Govt (not necessarily individuals but offices, laws, etc.) would be reasonable. --Masem (t) 18:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
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.
"When technically minded folk with a penchant for order, consistency, and control get caught up in the zeal of a systematization crusade, unpleasantness can result." – A Fellow Editor
To add to which, re the original poster's "I've been running an AWB task recently to add {{Use mdy dates}} to any article that's in a subcategory of Category:United States": DO NOT DO THIS. Some of us use and prefer variant styles that are nevertheless consistent with both the MOS and US date conventions (such as the style discussed in the link given above by EEng) and take drive-by efforts to change date formats from our preferences to something else with great hostility. The MOS says not to change consistent date formats without consensus. Adding {{Use mdy dates}}, even to an article on a US topic in which some of the dates are formatted as mdy, can be a change of a consistent date format. Unless your AWB script is smart enough to recognize and correctly tag these variations (and I'm betting it isn't) you should not be using AWB to do this. If you are editing by hand and are capable of distinguishing consistent formatting that mixes mdy/ymd (yes, that is a thing) from inconsistent formatting, and only want to tag the inconsistent ones, then that's less problematic, but I don't think that AWB and the level of care needed for this tend to go together. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I would have opposed, had I seen this in time. It’s clearly an unbalanced proposal, being aimed at pages with American national ties only, and it sought to establish a closer link between Engvar and date format than is required based on the existing MoS. MapReader (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I would like to see this done for every country, not just the U.S., but it's necessary to start somewhere. If I'd anticipated the level of, frankly, pedantry that I would encounter here, I would've proposed starting with some DMY countries too.
Overall, I'm disappointed in the reaction here. To maintain an encyclopedia at Wikipedia's scale, it's necessary to automate tasks wherever reasonable. No bot will ever be able to handle every possible niche edge case or get its error rate completely to zero, but the one I proposed would have been really close, especially after removing all articles with category ties to any other country. Editors here seemed so determined to ensure that they will never have to make a trivial revert on the idiosyncratic, sui generis article with "consistent formatting that mixes mdy/ymd" that they're willing to sacrifice the 150,000 articles where date format has never been given a second thought and which would clearly benefit from using the format with which most of their readers will be most familiar. /vent {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
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.
Composed fractions
I was reading an article where a fraction was rendered as three separate characters for something as simple as 1/2 and 1/4. This does not seem right to me and frankly looks absolutely hideous. From an accessibility perspective, I suspect that screen readers will also be able to do a much better job of reading ¼ vs. 1⁄4.
This policy seems to be around a decade old at this point and web browser (and other client) support for the full Unicode set has dramatically improved since it was written. Is it time to revisit it? —lensovet–talk – 22:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I find those precomposed fractions at least ten times as hideous as you think 1/2 is. I also find them as mind-bogglingly pointless as a precomposed "the" would be. --Khajidha (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
In the past I have had cause to use numbers like 1⁄44, 1⁄22 and 5⁄11 in articles. I am also aware of articles where there is at least a case for using the numbers 80⁄623 and 160⁄623. Note that these values are derived from precise legal definitions, and vulgar fractions are preferable to decimals in order to maintain precision.
t or troy must be specified where applicable. Use oz avdp or lb avdp only where there is risk of confusion with troy ounce, imperial fluid ounce, US fluid ounce, or troy pound; but articles about precious metals, black powder, and gemstones should always specify avoirdupois or troy.
Does any object my revising this to read
the qualifier t or troy must be specified where applicable. Use oz avdp or lb avdp only where there is risk of confusion with troy ounce, imperial fluid ounce, US fluid ounce, or troy pound. Articles about precious metals, coins, black powder, and gemstones should always specify which type of ounce (avoirdupois or troy) is being used, noting that these materials are normally measured in troy ounces and grams.
Only to point out that noting that these materials are normally measured in troy ounces and grams is not strictly correct for coins.
Coins are only measured in troy ounces if they are made with precious metals (or are made to be the same size and weight as coins made with precious metals). The Cartwheel penny, for example, is designed to weigh one avoirdupois ounce, not one troy ounce.
In the circumstances, we obviously need to distinguish the two systems pretty rigorously when discussing coin weights, regardless of which kind of ounce we're using. Kahastoktalk21:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Yup, I added coins (but failed to highlight it as a change, done now, sorry). I can see that to include coins opens a Pandora's Box that would better be left closed, so I withdraw that part of the proposal. Thank you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I would repeat my personal view that when such confusing and ambiguous units as "ounces" are used, disambiguation should always be a priority, and a correct conversion into real units should always be provided. There have been about as many different kinds of ounces (tower measure, anyone?) as there have been coins. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
There is nobody on the entire planet who is going to read Chick-O-Stick and assume in good faith that the ounces in question are the ones that were only ever used for minting coins in England before 1527. You might as well argue that we need to disambiguate every instance of seconds, in case someone assumes that Usain Bolt ran the hundred metres in 9.58 French decimal seconds.
In terms of conversions, we already say, Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided and I don't think anyone has argued that this should not apply in this case. If there's anything that needs adding to this, it is to point out that the most "real" unit for precious metals is the unit used by the international markets and in most physical sales, i.e. the troy ounce. I would certainly agree that any weight measurement for precious metals needs to include a conversion into troy ounces. Kahastoktalk15:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The text already says (and my proposal would not change it) Use oz avdp or lb avdp only where there is risk of confusion with troy ounce, imperial fluid ounce, US fluid ounce, or troy pound, so may I request that we go no further up this blind alley? Or does it need to say Use the qualifier avdp only where there is risk of confusion with troy ounce, imperial fluid ounce, US fluid ounce, or troy pound? [comments please].
Why doesn't first mention of U.S. money have to have "US" put in front of it?
Question raised by User:Melbguy05User:I dream of horses So we had a discussion also involving other editors about an article Mr Cruelhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mr_Cruel#U.S._dollars_or_Australian_dollars about events wholly in Australia. Australia, like the U.S., uses a currency they call the "dollar." The question was whether the article should mention that reward amounts are in Australian dollars. The consensus seems to have been that it should. However, Manual of Style mentions that, "In articles entirely on EU-, UK- and/or US-related topics, all occurrences may be shortened (€26, £22 or $34), unless this would be unclear." So the question is why should an article about events wholly in Australia mention that dollar amounts are in Australian money, but an article about events wholly in America doesn't have to mention that dollar amounts are in American dollars? Greg Dahlen (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Because the US dollar, the British pound, and the euro are by far the dominant global currencies, and readers will naturally assume that references to dollar mean US dollars. But for better or for worse, many readers may not be aware that there are other dollars here and there, and when these are in play it's best to make that clear. EEng13:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree with this. I feel confident to assert that roughly nobody is going to think, in a purely Australian context, that an arbitrary amount quoted in "dollars" (or "$") with no clarification refers to USD rather than AUD. If for no other reason than that to give prices in USD in an article about Australia (especially if no clarification were given that that was what was meant) would be a flagrant violation of the principle of least astonishment, and thus our readers would presumably just take it as read that nobody would be perverse enough to use "dollar" to mean USD in an Australian context. For the simple reason that no other remotely sane publication would do so, for reasons that should be obvious. If someone does labour under the delusion that Australians use USD as their currency, then I fall back on my argument that it falls outwith the scope of WP to compensate for every conceivable form of ignorance (or weird belief) that a hypothetical reader could manifest. And FWIW, in the use case that we are here addressing (i.e. giving our readers a rough idea of the magnitude of an arbitrary amount of money, not accountancy), the fact that AUD and USD are of the same order of magnitude means this is a likely non-issue IRL. Archon 2488 (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
nobody is going to think, in a purely Australian context, that an arbitrary amount quoted in "dollars" (or "$") with no clarification refers to USD rather than AUD – That's if they're aware that Australia even uses dollars. EEng18:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
For context, I've no personal connection to the country and I've never visited Australia (much as I'd like to) and would hardly put myself forward as any kind of authority on Australian politics, history, or culture; indeed I freely admit I'm absolutely ignorant of many aspects of Australian culture. Nonetheless, I've been aware since I was literally a child, growing up on an island on the opposite side of the planet, that Australia has a currency called the dollar, which is not the same as the US dollar. This is not obscure information by any reasonable standard, and there is a necessary minimal level of basic competence / knowledge WP is obliged to presume in its readers. I think that knowing "Australians use Australian dollars" falls within that remit. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I actually do think it would be better to call out "US dollars" at first reference, or use the USD symbol. It might seem a little unnecessary in a clearly American article, but it doesn't really hurt anything, and possibly prevents some misunderstandings. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Trovatore, and certainly this should be stated in any article that isn't exclusively about the US. But, as I said in the other debate, very many American editors don't even feel it necessary to state the country they are writing about at all, presumably as the possibility that anyone outside the US might read Wikipedia has not ocurred to them. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, I was explaining why the guideline is what it is. I'd be OK changing it as suggested, but I counsel that a long discussion will be needed to get people on board. EEng18:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I think User:Archon 2488 has a point as to the Australian dollar, but I disagree with User:Trovatore on the issue of using USD or referring to U.S. dollars in articles that are clearly about the United States. The currency is pragmatically inferable from the subject matter of the article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Well I'm a well-educated person with a Stanford degree and intense commitment to lifelong learning, and did not know Australia also has the dollar. Don't read about Australia often and when I do not business articles. Haven't visited. But even if I had I'd think some would not be aware Australia has the dollar even though they'd know America does. I probably would have thought countries called their currencies different names to avoid confusion. Would be fine with putting US in front of first mention of figures in American money. Greg Dahlen (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Isn't it at least common knowledge among Americans that Canada also calls its currency the dollar? And while it would be sensible for every country to call its currency a unique name for disambiguation purposes, the messy practicalities of history (and, to an extent, cultural imperialism) mean that "dollars" (originally German Thalers) and "pounds" are widespread; the latter noticeably less so since the collapse of the British Empire (indeed, Australia and NZ renamed their respective currencies from "pound" to "dollar" in the 1960s, as a sort of fitting metaphor for the decline of British influence and the rise of US influence globally) – although even in this case, there remain oddities like the Egyptian pound. Not to speak of the number of "pesos" around the world, as a legacy of the Spanish Empire, years after Spain ditched theirs. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Australia and NZ renamed their respective currencies from "pound" to "dollar" — Australia did not rename the currency, we changed it. The dollar as a different currency with a different value. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment I can see both sides of this argument to be honest. For consistency we probably should write US$ on first mention even in pure American articles, but on the other hand the current guideline is not egregious. It seems to me that in the wider world, an article on an Australian topic might be written in either US or Aussie dollars, whereas an article on a US topic would almost never be written in Aussie dollars, unless it was in an Australian newspaper (and even then I think they'd clarify). — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
An article on an Australian topic would never be written in US dollars the same as an article on a US topic would never be written in Australian dollars. The choice of currency depends on what audience an author is writing an article for and Wikipedia is written for an international audience so all currencies should be identified. An exception to identification could be if an article was a "country-specific article".--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Actually you can't say that so emphatically - I've seen ambiguity arise when eg sportpeople from one country are active internationally, or say if an Australian museum buys a painting in the US (or London) for "dollars". Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I think the prevalence of the US Dollar generally means we should assume that, unless context indicates otherwise, the currency being discussed is USD when just using a $ (dollar symbol). That being said, I note that even on apple.com.au prices are listed as "From A$1,699" (see here), and that is presumably when facing an Australian audience. Just one anecdote, but perhaps we should just stick to the sources when it comes to this unless ambiguity would be involved. —Locke Cole • t • c17:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, the prominence of the US dollar means we could assume that [etc etc], as you say, but the question is what the costs and benefits are of not assuming it i.e. of always being specific on first use, so that everyone's gently and briefly reminded. The more I think about it, the more I think we should just do that, though I know that will be a hard sell. EEng17:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
You write unless context indicates otherwise – here we are explicitly discussing an Australian context, in which I would default to presuming (per the practice of relevant reliable sources, like any Australian publication) that a "dollar" is an Australian dollar, not an American one. Or do you think that the Sydney Morning Herald feels the need to reassure its readers that the prices it quotes are not in US dollars? I would tend to lean towards using ISO currency codes or some other form of unambiguous notation, regardless. It is clear from this discussion alone that different people have very divergent perceptions of what our readers will presume is meant in a given context. And across the board, I am strongly opposed to context-specific disambiguation – i.e. an editor taking it for granted that a reader will make the same assumptions about what, say, a "dollar" is that they do, then finding out in short order that that is not the case, because different people focus on different information in constructing their picture of what the context is. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
No, NOT the ISO currency codes. People who know that AUD means Australian dollars don't need the help understanding in the first place. Like the guideline currently says, If there is no common English abbreviation or symbol, follow the ISO 4217 standard. (emphasis added). EEng20:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Seems to me that there are some cases, maybe a small number, where it is obvious to everyone. The price of IBM or Facebook stock is, I suspect, well known to be in USD. But yes, if it isn't so obvious it seems that specifying is a good idea. Gah4 (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Archon 2488: I was answering the subject of this section: Why doesn't first mention of U.S. money have to have "US" put in front of it? (and the inline text in the original inquiry: ...but an article about events wholly in America doesn't have to mention that dollar amounts are in American dollars?) I mentioned the Apple source in passing as it appears to support the idea that businesses even within Australia disambiguate the AUD from USD. —Locke Cole • t • c21:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
And your reference for a business within Australia is an American company's website (Australian version). If you look at an actual Australian company's website (e.g.Coles, Woolworths, or MYER), you don't typically tend to see any attempt to disambiguate AUD from USD (or CAD, or NZD) for reasons that are obvious. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm actually not sure what point you think we agree on or what point you're trying to make exactly. To clarify, I'm thinking that "$" on its own might be acceptable only in cases with WP:STRONGNAT to a particular country with a currency called the dollar. For the reasons that an Australian website advertising to Australian customers doesn't need to clarify that it's quoting prices in Australian dollars, while the Australian version of an international website run by an American business does feel the need for such disambiguation. Likewise, people probably won't assume that "pesos" in an article about Argentina are Mexican pesos. If there's no strong tie to any particular country (say, it's an article about some renewable energy technology that is discussing the costs of different installations around the world) then I don't support providing prices as e.g. "$2bn" without clarification of what is meant. If we don't want ISO codes then something like "US$" is clear enough (likewise, I guess, "CA$", "AU$", "NZ$"). Archon 2488 (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
MOS history: Currency symbols was changed in the manual in 2007 from "In country-specific articles such as Economy of Australia use only the symbol specific to the country, in this case $, with an italicized note placed at the top of the article to make this clear." to "In country-specific articles, such as Economy of Australia, use the currency of the country." and "Fully identify a currency on its first appearance (AU$52); subsequent occurrences are normally given without the country identification (just $88), unless this would be unclear. The exception to this is in articles related to the US and the UK, in which the first occurence may also be shortened ($34 and £22, respectively), unless this would be unclear." In 2009, the manual was changed for multiple symbols in an article: "When there are different currencies using the same symbol, use the full abbreviation (e.g. US$ for the United States dollar and AU$ for the Australian dollar, rather than just $) unless the currency which is meant is clear from the context". Dollar symbols has been discussion three times in Talk: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 146#US$ vs $ in 2014, in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 133#Currency - always have country in front of dollar sign in 2011 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 130#Currencies in 2010.--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentOECD Style Guide states to identify the currency at first mention the same as the MOS and doesn't provide exceptions for the EU, UK and US like the MOS and requires those three currencies to be identified to distinguish different dollar currencies.[1] The European CommissionEnglish Style Guidestates to identify the currency at first mention the same as the MOS and doesn't provide exceptions the same as the OECD has guidance on ISO codes but not on symbols.[2] The World BankEditorial Style Guidehas the same symbol and notation requirements for all currencies with "US$" to be used and "All dollar amounts are U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated" included recommends that the US dollar be identified by the $ symbol with the US$ symbol used instead "when it is not clear that the reference is to the U.S. dollar." The Editorial Style Guide recommends adding a notation that "All dollar amounts are U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated".[3]The Canadian Style by the Canadian government states that dollars should be distinguished as "A reference to $20 will be ambiguous to a non-Canadian reader and may be taken to refer to American or some other currency" and recommends to use Can$.[4]The Canadian Style was different to other style guides from Australia, New Zealand and the US such as The Chicago Manual of Style that don't recommend identifying their dollar and use $.[5][6][7][8]--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC); edited 09:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a strong argument for making this mandatory or 100% consistent, because much depends on context. I think it's less of an issue for US$ in US articles, because that is such a widely-known currency. I usually distinguish AUD when creating content myself, because I think it makes it clearer and no harm is done. There is of course a particularly strong case for doing so when the article, even when about Australia, refers to figures which have been calculated in US$, which is not infrequent when talking about trade-related matters. (I have seen cases where this has not been done, and had to consult the source to clarify which one it is.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The Commonwealth Style Guide (p. 175) says that when disambiguation is required, use a letter ie A$10 US$25.90 NZ$40. Alternative, the three letter ISO code can be used ie AUD10 USD25.90 NZD40. Hawkeye7(discuss)04:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
This is fine and well, until we find that people don't agree on when disambiguation is needed. Which, as I read it, is largely the purpose of this MOS discussion? A lot of editors seem to presume that it's just obvious when "$" means USD. Even in contexts when that's not the only feasible interpretation. Quoting costs of projects in an article without WP:STRONGNAT is a good example – is a general-purpose article discussing the cost of an engineering project in Australia (among other countries) in "dollars" using USD (for ease of international comparison) or AUD (because that's what most sources would probably give)?
We're not gonna standardize totally on the ISO codes (which AFAIK are the one genuinely unambiguous and internationally recognized notation), and we also don't want it to be a free-for-all. Which means this might well become another "MOSNUM special" bugger's muddle. Archon 2488 (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
While cynics are always right (and while I have been pilloried for making similar points to yours in the past), my personal mantra – which I appreciate is not shared by everyone here – is that there are, ultimately, practical limits on what foundational knowledge an encyclopedia is required to presume of its readership. We can always gloss terms that are perceived to be obscure enough – but then, like everything else MOS-related, we find that the precise interpretation of "obscure enough" becomes political, and the question spawns innumerable angels-on-pinheads talkpage and MOS discussions, none of which comes to any sort of useful conclusion. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
References
^OECD Style Guide(PDF) (3 ed.). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2015. p. 70. Retrieved 11 October 2021.
^"'9.21: non-US currencies using the dollar symbol". The Chicago manual of style (17 ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 2017. ISBN9780226287058.
Propose removal of requirement to specify "fluid" for U.S. pints and quarts
US or imperial (or imp) must be specified; fluid or fl must be specified for fluid ounces and US units, except with gallon. (Without fluid, ounce is ambiguous – versus avoirdupois ounce or troy ounce – and US pint or US quart are ambiguous – versus US dry pint or US dry quart.)
I would argue that the requirement to specify fluid for U.S. pints and quarts is unnecessary, given that everyday usage of dry pints and quarts - even in the United States, where I live - is essentially nonexistent (as a matter of fact, I didn't even know that dry pints and quarts existed before reading this table, and have literally never used them). Any American seeing US pt or US qt will immediately think of the liquid measure, and, in the rare cases when we do need to refer to dry pints or quarts, they can be explicitly specified as such (much like how, for U.S. measures of weight, we use generic pounds vs. troy pounds, rather than avoirdupois pounds vs. troy pounds). As such, I propose the following modification to the row of the table dealing with U.S. and imperial fluid measures:
Guidelines on specific units
Group
Name
Symbol
Comment
Volume, flow
imperial fluid ounce
imperial pint
imperial quart
imperial gallon
US fluid ounce
US pint
US quart
US gallon
imp fl oz
imp pt
imp qt
imp gal
US fl oz
US pt
US qt
US gal
US or imperial (or imp) must be specified; fluid or fl must be specified for fluid ounces. (Without fluid, ounce is ambiguous versus avoirdupois ounce or troy ounce.)
In the rare case that one needs to refer to the U.S. dry pint or quart, drymust be specified, and the difference between the dry pint and quart and the fluid measures of the same names should be explained in a footnote upon first use (as even U.S. readers are highly unlikely to be familiar with the dry units).
The (US) dry pint and liquid pint differ by about 16 % and we should disambiguate between them, just like we do between short ton and long ton. Removing the "fl" qualifier would increase the ambiguity. Even if Americans can tell (perhaps from the context) which unit is intended, non-Americans have no way of telling unless we make it explicit. I have two related questions though:
Is the correct term "fluid pint" or "liquid pint"?
(edit conflict) I believe (but am not certain) that it's "fluid ounce" and "liquid pint/quart/etc.", although I haven't anything more authoritative than our own Pint#Definitions. Stepho-wrs, how do you Aussies measure your: blueberries, cement, cherry tomatoes, strawberries, etc.? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits)13:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
You'd near-exclusively talk about their mass, as that's what you're actually interested in, not how much space they happen to take up when packed in a particular way. FWIW, I don't think many folk outside the US think it's remotely sensible to measure solids by volume rather than mass. The fact that fluids change shape to fit their container is... quite a useful and relevant property. Solids, not so much. And in imperial units (as opposed to USC) there is no such distinction between "liquid" and "dry" measure. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The necessary disambiguation can be provided by explicitly specifying that a dry pint or quart is being referred to on the rare occasions where we have to mention them, and letting an unqualified pint/quart automatically refer to a fluid/liquid pint/quart (as it does anyway for non-Americans). It's like how we let unqualified pounds refer (in contexts where pound sterling can be excluded) to avoirdupois pounds, despite them being over 20% heavier than troy pounds. Whoop whoop pull upBitching Betty ⚧ Averted crashes14:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I think they should be labelled as fluid or dry, to avoid ambiguity. Dry measure is still in use; I bought a peck of apples this month, and have bought dry pint packages of blueberries.
The US Constitution gives authorities over weights and measures to Congress, but Congress has largely neglected to use this authority. Congress did set up the National Bureau of Standards, now the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which provides physical standards to each state, and calibration services to high-precision users. Enforcement of weights and measures laws falls to the states. NIST has facilitated conferences of state representatives, which have resulted in the publication of Handbook 44. All the states have adopted this handbook as a law which everyone who uses measurements in commerce must obey. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
That's actually quite an interesting, if somewhat overwhelming, document. (And from it, it's not obvious offhand whether liquid or fluid is the right wording.) EEng14:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
As I understand it, the commercial use of weights and measures can vary from state to state (eg different reference temperatures for volumes of gasoline), so might the use of dry measures for retail vary? NebY (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Amazing, isn't it? I can't find the formal survey of temperatures right now so here's Snopes mentioning "Temperature regulations on gasoline sales are already in effect in some places. Hawaii, for example, requires retail pumps to dispense fuel on the assumption that it is 80°F rather than 60°F." NebY (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh, wait, I see. It's for final retail sale of stock at (something like) ambient temperature. In that case it actually makes sense, in a rough-and-ready way, to vary the assumption according to region. EEng14:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed we specified "fluid" for pint and quart. We should only specify such modifiers for the exceptional cases - dry pints, dry quarts - and not the commonplace ones that are normally clear from context anyway. Of 26 articles using "US pint", the one that gives the density of butter as "0.950 lb per US pint" is certainly obscure, but happily unusual. {{Convert}} certainly doesn't bother with either "liquid" or "fluid" for pints.
For terminology, I agree it's "fluid ounce" but "liquid pint" if specified at all - and our uncertainty over that speaks to its rarity.
We don't need to lecture editors about whether or not Americans are familiar with dry measures (clearly many are) and requiring a footnote is too onerous. I'd suggest linking on first use to either Pint#US dry pint or just Dry pint, a redirect to Dry measure. The first just gives conversions, the latter explains matters at length. NebY (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Fascinating document. According to p4-11 "If the capacity is stated in terms of the pint or quart, the word “Liquid” or the abbreviation “Liq” shall be included". There's no mention of a fluid pint anywhere so this suggests we should call it a liquid pint. I agree disambiguation can be achieved by linking on first use (instead of spelling out "Liq"), but I dont think our present wording requires linking. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm strongly opposed to any suggestion that these endlessly confusing units do not need disambiguation, not least because we have perennial problems with people simply citing "miles", "ounces" etc without stating exactly what they mean, and the values being converted variously into metric depending on the interpretation. Troy / avoirdupois is yet another bugbear with ounces, although context usually makes it clear what should be meant; on the other hand, roughly nobody bothers to disambiguate statue / nautical miles, even in highly ambiguous contexts where they are readily confused, such as a paragraph that describes the distance of an island offshore then immediately afterwards the dimensions of the island. You would naturally assume (because context) that the former distance would be in nautical miles and the latter statute, but it doesn't hurt to clarify, and save the gnomes who come along afterwards the pain of trying to guess what you meant. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
As another case, everyday usage of the word "pint" includes ordering pints of beer, and people using imperial pints may be surprised at what they get with a US liquid pint (or vice versa). I don't think the disambiguation can be skipped. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Which is why I'm not proposing to do anything to the imperial/U.S. disambiguation - merely proposing to, when talking in U.S. units, stop requiring us to provide explicit disambiguation when referring to the primary U.S. uses of the terms "pint" and "quart", and, instead, have those two terms refer to the liquid measures unless explicitly stated otherwise. Whoop whoop pull upBitching Betty ⚧ Averted crashes21:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Updated proposal
Guidelines on specific units
Group
Name
Symbol
Comment
Volume, flow
imperial fluid ounce
imperial pint
imperial quart
imperial gallon
US fluid ounce
US pint
US quart
US gallon
imp fl oz
imp pt
imp qt
imp gal
US fl oz
US pt
US qt
US gal
US or imperial (or imp) must be specified; fluid or fl must be specified for fluid ounces. (Without fluid, ounce is ambiguous versus avoirdupois ounce or troy ounce.)
Unless otherwise specified, US pt and US qt refer to the liquid measures of those names. In the rare case that one needs to refer to the U.S. dry pint or quart, drymust be specified. Link to Pint#US dry pint or Quart#US dry quart (depending on which is being referenced) on first use.
Thank you for neatly summing up the ambiguity. In this situation, the reader has no way of telling what units are used. She is expected to just know. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
This made sense to me until I remembered that I'm one of probably << 0.1% of readers who are aware of MOSNUM and would therefore in principle know (or be able to find out) Wikipedia's disambiguation conventions in such cases. The vast majority of readers will need explicit disambiguation, and I see no benefit to them or the project in denying it to them. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
When I lived in America, I distinctly remember having bought strawberries by the dry pint. What's the point of increasing ambiguity? There is none, and therefore I oppose this proposal. RGloucester — ☎15:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, a look at [29] suggests that the situation is complicated. If I'm reading things right (and I can't say I'm sure that I am) ...
You use fl / fluid (not liq / liquid), versus avdp or avoirdupois (mass), for ounces.
Imperial fluid ounces are different from US customary fluid ounces, so you need imp fl oz or UC fl oz to be fully unambiguous.
You use liq / liquid, versus dry, for pints and quarts. But this is only for US: US dry pt, US liq pt, US dry qt, US liq qt.
Imperial pints and quarts are used for both fluid/liquid measure and dry measure, so imp pt and imp qt are unambiguous (that is, to add fluid or dry would make no sense).
Gal / gallon has no liquid/fluid/dry issue, but there's still imp gal vs. US gal.
Based on the above, I've made the following edit: [30].
Gills, minims, scruples, bushels, drams / drachms and the rest of the zoo have similar issues (e.g. When necessary to distinguish the avoirdupois dram from the apothecaries dram, or to distinguish the avoirdupois dram or ounce from the fluid dram or ounce, or to distinguish the avoirdupois ounce or pound from the troy or apothecaries ounce or pound, the word “avoirdupois” or the abbreviation “avdp” should be used in combination with the name or abbreviation of the avoirdupois unit.) But please let's not tackle those now.
That would be much too easy. If you need to be scrupulous, scruples are not imperial units, though they are (or were) English units (equal to 20 grains, if you must know). As for the rest of what you've written above, it looks ok but I stick to rational measures for anything important. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Do we have any evidence that either "liquid pint" or "fluid pint" are commonly used in the US? We seem to have various British editors here assuming that Americans must need clarification, which may underestimate the intelligence of Americans and the power of US English norms.
Indeed, do we even have any evidence that when fruit, for example, is sold by the pint it usually or even commonly has to be stated as a dry pint? I have tried a Google ngram for "a dry pint of strawberries" and "a pint of strawberries", and also for blueberries, but received no results for the dry phrasing.[31] Then I reduced it to simply comparing "a dry pint" - of anything, I don't care - with "a pint of strawberries" and "a pint of blueberries", and found any use at all of "a dry pint" is now vastly rarer than either of those.[32]NebY (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
In common usage, "pint" is disambiguated by what it's a pint of. Probably not even most users of US customary units are actually aware of this. That seems less than ideal for the needs of an encyclopedia (at least where the difference actually matters; of course in practice there are probably lots of cases where it doesn't matter much).
It reminds me of the old saw, which is heavier, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers? A pound of feathers, of course, because it's a pound avoirdupois, whereas the gold is a pound Troy. --Trovatore (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The NIST document I linked earlier says to specify liquid or dry (for pints and quarts, in the US system) "where necessary". In any one area of commerce, where everyone knows what's going on anyway, it's probably rarely necessary. I think that here on WP, where there are so many measuring systems running around and so many people from so many backgrounds, it's probably best to specify dry or liquid, on first use at least. I'm not sure how much we want to get into spelling that out though.Certainly I goofed in leaving the "Comment" as it is, implying that you have to say liquid where it applies, but don't have to say dry where it applies. If anything it would be the reverse (since more readers will be familiar with liquid than dry) but, as I just said, I think the guidance, what ever it is, should be symmetric. (Now there's some rambling for you.) EEng21:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
After fixing several goofs I made in this part of the guideline, I've added some mealymouthed stuff on dry vs. liq, in default of knowing what else to do. [33]EEng05:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
At present, the symbols we're showing as valid (in green) include US liq pt and US liq qt, but not US pt and US qt. This renders editors unable to follow that part of MOSNUM and use {{Convert}}. Let's follow {{Convert/list of units}} (and normal usage) in the column of symbols and show Us pt and US qt, not US liq pt or US liq qt. We may even save some readers from worrying what the difference is between an ordinary pint and a liquid one. NebY (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
We've already had this discussion, and concluded a non-American reader (and perhaps some American readers) confronted with an unqualified "US pint" would not know whether dry or liq was intended. If the template needs fixing, then let's correct the template. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion is live and continuing. You're the only one that's suggested non-American readers seeing "US pt" will imagine it might mean a dry pint. Let's not cascade this error into {{Convert}}. We should however notify that talk page that a discussion here might affect the template. I'll do that. NebY (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
While this article has guidance to not spell out numbers in sports scores and vote tallies (in the “Notes and exceptions” list under “Numbers as figures or words”), it does not have any guidance to use en dashes with them. However, it seems to be a well established convention to use en dashes with them, and the sample sports score in the above referenced text uses an en dash, too, albeit without explicitly calling out that fact.
I’d therefore like to either add a “Sports scores and vote tallies” section following “Number ranges”, or append guidance to “Number ranges” and change its title to “Number ranges, sports scores, and vote tallies”. The guidance could be simply something along the lines of the following:
Separate sports scores and vote tallies with an en dash:
In Superball XXII, Foo beat Bar, 24–6 (not 24-6)
Joe Blow beat Jane Doe in the runoff by only a half dozen votes, with Donald Duck receiving a handful of write-in votes, for a final tally of 6,403–6,397–4 (not 6,403-6,397-4)
Using single-digit scores and tallies in the above examples would also implicitly reinforce the guidance from the other section to always use digits and not spell out single-digits in these contexts.
Should say "en dash" rather than giving a link to the ndash template, matching the section above on number ranges. And I think "sports scores" is more idiomatic, but maybe that is an Americanism? Otherwise I agree with this addition. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Or maybe the other section should link instead of saying endash; if you try to make this page self-consistent you'll quickly go mad, and anyway I think it's best to give markup directly (where it's easy to do so) instead of making the editor figure it out. Sport is Brit. EEng23:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
For me the direct method for producing an en-dash is just to type it: option-key hyphen-key. But I wouldn't think that our MOS should write ⌥ Option+- to describe en-dashes. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Some proposed edits for “Non-base 10 notations” section
While looking for guidance for how to format a non-base 10 number the other day, I ran across the guidance here. I found it to be unwieldy and made some copy edits for brevity and clarity. I thought my edits were non-substantive but my edit was reverted with the suggestion that I discuss it here first.
Here were my beefs:
Non-neutral language in the octal prefix bullet: “the prefix 0 is unclear”, “other prefixes may be unfamiliar” … OK, that may be, but this is not the place to editorialize, we need to either tell people to use 0 as a prefix for octal or not, but don’t be wishy washy
The guidance for the octal prefix can be added to the first bullet as a third recommended prefix, in addition to 0x for hex and 0b for binary in computing contexts … having octal as its own bullet just adds clutter for no gain, because it falls under the same rule as 0x and 0b (i.e., use “0” prefix in computing contexts, subscript “8” suffix in non-computing contexts)
The examples given in the non-computing bullet used numbers with uncommon radices (3 and 9) … I wanted to use three example numbers with bases 2, 8, and 16 (to align with the three computer-related prefixes) and use the same three example numbers in both the computing bullet (with the computing prefixes) and in the non-computing bullet (with the radix as a sub scripted suffix) to show the reader the contrast the two styles
It's not wishy washy - it explicitly says avoid octal prefixes. But it also explains the rationale along the way.
We can't add the prefix to the first bullet point because we say avoid using an octal prefix.
The unusual radices were chosen to show the generic case instead of the special cases of 2 and 16.
The last time this was discussed I created {{base}} (eg 2008), which seemed to be warmly received and it was actually mentioned directly in the MOS. Then it was removed from MOS and now nobody knows of it. :(
Thank you for updating MOS to point to my template. I'll probably spend the next week strutting around, all puffed up with pride. Stepho talk22:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Propose a maximum of two decimal places precision for most weight and length measurements
Example: 15.38 km instead of 15.382 km
For one thing, with metric units you might as well replace it with "15,382 m" since its giving the exact same amount of detail.
More importantly, plenty of countries use , and . the other way around (, for decimal places and . as a separator for thousandths), and with three digit precision there is a potential for easy misunderstand when one isnt careful.
When a number is large enough that it is given in Kilometers there rarely is a point in stating its length exact to the meter, or a number in tons to the exact Kilo and so on. Most of the time rounding to the next integer or just having one decimal place is probably sufficient anyway, so I can't think of a case were having two instead of three decimal places would cause significant problems.
I wont go so far as to propose using a bot to truncate every number in every article, but adding it as a preferred style to the manual wouldn't hurt.
For context: Decimal_separator#Examples_of_usejonas (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
This sounds like instruction creep. Isn't it already covered by MOS:UNCERTAINTY - round to an appropriate number of significant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative. Precise values ... should be used only where ...appropriate to the context. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
+1. There's no question that few editors have a good sense of what level of precision is appropriate for a given context, and articles are rife with figures that are overprecise -- often absurdly so, such as money amounts inflated for 100 years then reported to the nearest dollar or pound. But it's about as serious a problem as there being too much passive voice. Any benefit flowing from a project to fix this will be at best marginal, and the potential for screwing things up royally is incalculable (if the choice of words may be pardoned). EEng21:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Of course excessive precision is to be avoided, but if you follow this rule in your own editing, you may confuse and mislead readers. For example, the fact that some countries use the comma as the decimal separator means that your suggested 15,382 m could be misunderstood as appproximately 15 m, while 15.382 km would still be clear, if unfamiliar. What's more, if you don't want to express it to such precision, it's better to write 15.38 km than 15,380 m, which looks as if it might be expressed at such length to be exact.
As another example, a hole might be specified as 0.375 +0.005 −0.000 in, easily produced with a 3/8" drill and a smooth fit for various bolts or rods. Truncate it to 0.37 +0.00 −0.00 and you've specified something too small but with no tolerance; round up to 0.38 +0.01 −0.00 and you've specified something very loose.
One more example: to avoid using unnecessary constants in formulae, scientists and engineers often like to express formulae so that any set of coherent units can be used, such as metres/kilograms/seconds etc. We can then express our inputs in those units, not in fractions and multiples such as millimetres and kilometres. We express them to whatever precision we need and accept the resulting decimals - and to avoid rounding errors, we express them to more precision than we need in the end result.
Similar principles apply in many contexts, from company accounts to gravimetry. So please, beware of applying your rule even in your own work, regardless of whether it's in the MOS. NebY (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
spacing in floruit example
is there a reason why the example used to illustrate the usage of floruit (fl.) does not have a spaced en dash?
the last point in the mos:approxdate section notes that spaced en dashes should be used when "fl." appears in a range, "whether on one or both sides", and i can't seem to find an applicable exception for this example. had the point explicitly stated "whether on the right or both sides", i would have understood the lack of a spaced dash, but that is currently not the case. dying (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
It looks to me to be a case of practice (inadvertently) not being in accordance with theory, and no one has caught it before. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
thanks for the feedback. i have added spaces to the example. feel free to revert my edit if a reason for the previous lack of spaces is discovered. dying (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
No, this is wrong. I'm sure the guideline does a bad job of explaining this, and I think even some of the related examples might not be right, but in this case definitely no spaces around the ndash, basically because the 1571–1588 bind to each other first, and the fl. applies to them as a unit: fl. 1571–1588.In contrast, in c. 1588 – 1622, the c. applies (presumably) only to the 1588, so we move the latter a bit away from the 1622 so as to put it in closer visual association with the c.. EEng08:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
interesting. i had previously interpreted the guidelines as basically stating that if the text used to describe the date range, including all modifiers, could be written without a space if the en dash was not spaced, then the en dash is not spaced. otherwise, the en dash is spaced.[b] my interpretation was more based on style rather than semantics, so thank you for that explanation.does this mean that fl. should not have been previously listed in the last guideline of the mos:approxdate section? admittedly, i currently cannot think of how fl. could have applied to only one side of a range, especially since fl. is used "[w]hen birth and death dates are unknown".also, from what i can tell, fl. is considered a modifier, both currently[c] and before your recent edits to the guidelines.[d] since the guideline right before the mos:topresent section currently recommends that a spaced en dash be used when a modifier is present, should an exception be explicitly made for fl. in that guideline? alternatively, should it be explicitly noted that fl. is not considered a modifier? dying (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
EEng, i was hoping for further guidance on this issue, if you have the time. tianwen-1, currently a bold link on itn, mentions the date range "c.340–278 BC" to note the lifespan of poet qu yuan.[e] in this range, i am assuming that "BC" should be interpreted as a modifier that "applies to the range as a whole", which implies that an unspaced en dash should be used. however, this also appears to be a case "[w]here era designations ... are present", which implies that a spaced en dash should be used. also, the modifier "c." is present and applies only to the first date of the range, which implies that a spaced en dash should be used. note that the unspaced version is currently also used in the lead of the article on qu yuan.is the current usage of the unspaced en dash correct? if so, are there any issues with "c." being misinterpreted as applying to the whole range because of the unspaced en dash? dying (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
i'm raising this issue again because the featured article blurb scheduled for tomorrow has a date range that falls under this ambiguity. the date range in question, "c. 113–88 BC", encounters the same issues as the date range in the tianwen-1 article i mentioned above. i should note that this does not appear to be the only situation in which the current guidelines appear contradictory. the issue lies in the fact that one type of modifier requires an unspaced en dash while the other requires a spaced en dash, and both types may appear in a date range. consider the following examples.
r. c.1353–1336BC
or
r. c.1353 – 1336BC
fl.12BH–AH10
or
fl.12BH – AH10
traditionally 1585–c.1590
or
traditionally 1585 – c.1590
in each of these examples, there is at least one modifier that "applies only to one of the two endpoints of the range", and at least one modifier that "applies to the range as a whole".offhand, i can think of two reasonable solutions to this problem. in the first, the recent changes to the guidelines are simply reverted to when there was only one type of modifier. this does end up meaning that the en dash in the original floruit example will end up being spaced, but considering that this appears to be the current behaviour of the floruit template, i am assuming that this is not necessarily undesired behaviour.[f] this was my original proposed solution, as it seemed to be the simplest to implement and it did not appear to disturb many of the already established guidelines.in the second solution, the current guidelines are modified so that when "the modifier applies to the range as a whole", the modifier is simply ignored when determining whether or not a spaced en dash should be used.[g] this would result in the original floruit example being unspaced, but also allow for a spaced en dash in uses of floruit such as the second of the three above examples. this also appears to be the current behaviour of the reign template when a simple year–year range is used. one possible issue is the fact that ranges such as "before 1758–1804" and "before 1758 – 1804" would technically have different meanings, while it is unclear if most readers, or even most editors, would be aware of this.[h]note that in both of these solutions, the spaced en dash would be used in each of the three example date ranges given above.of course, i don't purport to have all the solutions, and welcome any further suggestions or critique. i don't really have a personal preference over which solution to use. i had only wished to resolve an apparent contradiction when i first raised the issue, and am regretful that raising this issue appears to have only made the problem worse. dying (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I think there's a straightforward solution to this. Consider the two sides to be connected by an en dash. If either side has a space within it (e.g. a regular date like "16 June 2021", or something involving "c." or "fl." or any other modifier), then we ought to use a spaced dash. Otherwise "simple" ranges use an unspaced dash. This is the guideline already given at MOS:DATERANGE (which I don't think anyone has brought up in this discussion yet?). — RAVENPVFF·talk·23:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Ravenpuff, your solution is also basically how i had previously interpreted the guidelines of mos:daterange before they were changed about two months ago, so i am assuming that you are preferring the first solution, which simply reverts the recent changes. am i interpreting your comment correctly? also, i believe mos:daterange has not been explicitly brought up because all the other guidelines referenced were either part of mos:daterange or its following section mos:approxdate, and it made more sense to be more specific. dying (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Dying: On the contrary, I think the changes are reasonable and consistent with the previous guidelines. For example, in "[fl.] 1571–1588", neither "1571" nor "1588" has a space, and so we use an unspaced dash to connect the two. The presence of the floruit has no bearing on whether we use a spaced or unspaced dash here, since the term/abbreviation can (by definition) only apply to a single year not part of a range, or else a range of years (as in this case). "fl. 1571" can't be taken to represent Jacobus Flori's birth, or "1588" his death – floruit merely indicates the year(s) in which he was known to be active.
The {{fl.}} template is a little puzzling – it prescribes a spaced en dash, but only because it prefixes "c." to the ending year. While I'm unsure that this behaviour is always desirable, it's certainly consistent with the prevailing guidelines. — RAVENPVFF·talk·08:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Ravenpuff, i agree that the recent changes are reasonable, but i don't think they are consistent with the previous guidelines. i am not sure if this is the case, but i think we are currently disagreeing on whether the previous guidelines would have called for a spaced en dash in the original floruit example. i believe the previous guidelines would have called for a spaced en dash, while your comment has led me to believe that you believe the previous guidelines would have called for an unspaced en dash. if so, i would like to understand why we disagree, but i wanted to determine if that was actually the case.
by the way, i also share your confusion over the behaviour of the floruit template when two arguments are provided, as i mentioned in footnote [f]. the behaviour appears to have been introduced when code was copied from the circa template at the time,[i] as mentioned in the edit summary of the floruit template edit, and i don't know if retaining that behaviour was intentional.[j] however, i agree that it's consistent with both the previous and current guidelines.
in any case, whether the current guidelines are consistent with the previous guidelines was not why i had proposed two solutions to what i believe is an ambiguity problem. do you agree that the guidelines, as they currently stand, are ambiguous? if so, do you have any suggestions regarding how to resolve the ambiguity? if not, then could you explain how the en dashes in the three examples above are spaced (or not spaced) according to the current guidelines, and why? dying (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Dying: In your examples, all three dashes should be spaced:
The left-hand side is "c. 1353" and the right-hand side "1336". At least one side has an internal space (in this case the left), so a spaced dash should be used. To this is appended "BC", and then "r."; we obtain r. c. 1353 – 1336 BC. It's worth noting that the circa cannot apply to the range as a whole, with both endpoints being approximate, as stipulated by the second bullet point of MOS:APPROXDATE (if this were allowed, the dash would be unspaced).
The left-hand side is "12 BH" and the right-hand side "AH 10". At least one side has an internal space (in this case both), so a spaced dash should be used. To this is appended "fl."; we obtain fl. 12 BH – AH 10.
The left-hand side is "[traditionally] 1585" and the right-hand side "c. 1590". At least one side has an internal space, so a spaced dash should be used. "Traditionally" here could be applied to the year "1585" alone, or to the range "1585 – c. 1590"; at any rate the dash should be spaced since the right-hand side has an internal space in either case. We obtain traditionally 1585 – c. 1590.
That aside, I do think that the old guidelines were slightly self-contradictory in prescribing a spaced dash with "fl." (in the seventh and final bullet point of the section); I would put this down to a misunderstanding of the term itself. As explained above, floruit cannot be applied to one side of a range, but must be applied to a single year or an entire range of years, expressing the time period during which a particular person "flourished". In contrast, "c." or "after" can only be applied to one side of a range, in which case the dash would of course be spaced. (I admittedly didn't explicitly notice this bullet point previously.) However I don't see how the new guidelines are ambiguous – if anything, they're clearer than the old ones since "fl." is no longer incorrectly considered a "similar form". If we have a range, "c." or "after" can only be applied to one side at a time, while "fl." can only be applied to the whole. Hope this clears matters up a little. — RAVENPVFF·talk·23:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Ravenpuff, thank you for the thorough explanation of your reasoning, as i think i now understand our differing positions on the previous guidelines. i apologize in advance for the length of this comment, but since the matter at hand deals with ambiguity, i feel that it is better to be verbose and clear than curt and confusing. i had generally interpreted the guidelines to take priority over the examples, so had believed that the previous guidelines advocated for a spaced en dash, and that the floruit example was in error. you had interpreted the guidelines to have intended to advocate for an unspaced en dash in the floruit example, but had not previously noticed the last bullet point, and now consider the previous guidelines contradictory as a result. please let me know if i have misinterpreted your position. i don't consider either interpretation better; conflicting interpretations are a natural result of contradictory guidelines. i agree that, had the intention been to create a set of guidelines for which the original floruit example would have advocated for an unspaced dash, then the current guidelines do a better job of that.from what i can tell, our disagreement on the current guidelines lies on our differing interpretations of whether the guidelines currently state that modifiers that apply to the range as a whole, such as the "r." and "BC" in the first example, "fl." in the second, and "traditionally" in the third, "ha[ve] no bearing on whether we use a spaced or unspaced dash". your explanation above leads me to believe that you believe the current guidelines state that they have no bearing. i believe that they currently do not state this.the reason why i believe this is so is because the guidelines currently state that "[i]f the modifier applies to the range as a whole, use an unspaced en dash". it does not state to ignore the modifier; on the contrary, it explicitly states that an unspaced en dash should be used. this statement is unqualified, so it does not allow for exceptions, such as the presence of a circa modifier in the range. had the bullet point stated that the modifier should be ignored, then i agree with your analysis of the three examples above.[k] my second solution addresses this issue to better conform with your analysis, proposing to modify the guidelines "so that when 'the modifier applies to the range as a whole', the modifier is simply ignored".i agree that mentioning "fl." in the seventh and last main bullet point of the previous guidelines may have been a mistake if the intention was for the original floruit example to use an unspaced en dash, as i mentioned in the second paragraph of my third comment, timestamped at 13:35. also, i had specifically chosen to use the modifier "traditionally" because it was explicitly used in the last example of the current last bullet point of the mos:approxdate section, even though i agree that the use of this modifier may be ambiguous.[l]by the way, i noticed that you are using the concept of an "internal space", which does not appear to be well-defined in the guidelines, even though i believe i understand your definition of the concept. for example, you consider the spaces in "12 BH" and "AH 10" to be internal spaces, but because you state that, in the rexit example, "[a]t least one side has an internal space (in this case the left)", i am assuming that you do not consider the space in "1336 BC", on the right side of the en dash, to be an internal space.i do not know for certain, but i am assuming that you were also using the concept of an "internal space" in the straightforward solution that you had proposed, but had used the phrase "space within it" to refer to such spaces instead. if this is the case, your explanation that such spaces include those that appear in "something involving... 'fl.'" appears to muddy the definition of "internal space", perhaps in the same way that the seventh and last main bullet point did in the previous guidelines. i believe that it is possible to resolve what i believe is a contradiction in the current guidelines by using the concept of an internal space, but currently feel that the second solution i proposed is a cleaner alternative.do you agree that the second solution would better conform with your analysis? alternatively, if you see no practical difference between the current guidelines and a set of guidelines that implements the second solution, would you have any issue with the implementation of the second solution? dying (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Ravenpuff, i had been hoping to draft a revision to propose, pursuant to the second solution, but wanted to ping you first, as i value your input and wanted to see if you had any additional insight, so that i could avoid any potential issues if i were to draft the revision. dying (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@Dying: Apologies for this slightly delayed (and just as lengthy!) reply. In general, I do think that your "second solution" is a worthwhile one, but here are some thoughts:
Although I didn't really pay much attention to changes to the page prior to writing my previous reply, I considered the earlier example of unspaced "fl." to have been correct, but contradicted only by the more subtle guideline below, which stated that all modifiers ought to mandate a spaced dash. Your edit to this page resolved the inconsistency, but introduced an incorrect example. EEng's subsequent edits were a step in the right direction by making a distinction between modifiers that circumstantially apply to only one side of a range and those that apply to both sides.
My use of the term "internal space" was in a narrow sense, corresponding both to my previous use of "space within [it]" and the guideline that states "If at least one item on either side of the en dash contains a space ...", i.e. referring only to a space that appears within a compound that is to be joined to something else by a dash. Returning to the example, the dashed component is "c. 1353 – 1336". The space in "1336 BC" is not "internal" insofar as this is not a compound that is joined by a dash. For completeness, here are the three examples again, but with brackets added to show semantic structure:
That said, I agree that the current guidelines (specifically "If the modifier applies to the range as a whole, use an unspaced en dash") are slightly too strong. In fact, I think we could rewrite that bulleted item as a whole. Simply put, modifiers like "c." don't mandate a spaced dash just by virtue of their being modifiers – the more general reason is because they invariably introduce an "internal space" when applied to only one side of a dash. In this regard, your "second solution" works by stipulating that the use of whole-range modifiers ought to be silent on which form of dash is to be used.
At this point, I think it's worth pointing out that I don't really see the current guidelines to be wrong as such, but just slightly too overgeneralised. As I mentioned in previous comments, "fl." would almost always be used with a "simple" range of years, although there might conceivably be a counterexample to this (e.g. a long-ago artist whom we know definitely stopped working on a particular date). Such counterexamples, though, are exceedingly rare, and the current guidelines only fail with respect to edge cases like your three examples.
A different modifier to consider would be "traditionally" (hereinafter abbreviated "trad."; as will be explained below, this doesn't work in exactly the same ways as "fl."). Valid forms are:
trad. 1571–1588 (whole range traditional)
trad. 1571 – 1588 (start year traditional)
1571 – trad. 1588 (end year traditional)
trad. 1571 – trad. 1588 (both years traditional; this is similar to but not quite semantically the same as the first)[m]
Incorporating "c." (or similar modifiers), further valid forms are:
trad. c. 1571 – 1588 (start year approximate; "trad." ambiguous)
trad. 1571 – c. 1588 (end year approximate; "trad." ambiguous)
trad. c. 1571 – c. 1588 (both years approximate; "trad." ambiguous)
c. 1571 – trad. 1588 (start year approximate; end year traditional)
1571 – trad. c. 1588 (end year approximate and traditional)
c. 1571 – trad. c. 1588 (both years approximate; end year also traditional)
trad. c. 1571 – trad. 1588 (both years traditional; start year also approximate)
trad. 1571 – trad. c. 1588 (both years traditional; end year also approximate)
trad. c. 1571 – trad. c. 1588 (both years traditional and approximate)
Most of these contrived forms will almost certainly never be used in any article,[n] but this pedantry nonetheless shows that the valid use of "trad." could still result in ambiguity. This does not affect "c.", though, as the latter can only apply to one side of a range, whereas "trad." could apply to either or to both. This leaves us with three broad categories of modifiers.[o] For simplicity, this table indicates possible scopes for each category:
x.
x. 1571
x. 1571–1588
x. 1571 – 1588
1571 – x. 1588
x. 1571 – x. 1588
1.
c., after
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
2.
fl., r.
Y
Y
N
N
N
3.
trad.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
To sum up, I agree in principle with your second solution. Perhaps a more preferable phrasing might be something along the lines of the following: "If the modifier applies to the range as a whole, use a spaced/unspaced dash as appropriate to the range if this modifier is disregarded, e.g. [examples]". Since this concerns both categories 2 and 3, we should ideally include examples of usage for both. The first part of this bulleted item concerns just category 1, and so can probably remain as is, although it can probably benefit from a bit more clarity as well. The paragraph before MOS:TOPRESENT could also be reworded, although I'd argue that this is less of a concern, since this section is already about cases in which "at least one item on either side of the en dash contains a space". From what I understand, your second solution boils down to the consideration of internal spaces as well, since this is what we're ultimately evaluating by "ignoring the modifier". What do you think? — RAVENPVFF·talk·18:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Ravenpuff, many thanks for the thorough comment. this is great, as now i am pretty sure that the only real disagreement we had was on what the previous guidelines had stated, and i don't think we really disagree on that anymore anyway. i don't have a preference over what the guidelines should state, so am happy to draft a proposed revision of the guidelines that conform with what you think would be ideal.i pretty much agree with everything you've stated, although i think there may be additional classes of modifiers to consider,[p] as the era designations appear to also be considered modifiers by the guidelines. some always appear after the date being modified (e.g., "BCE"), some always before (e.g., "Shōwa"), and some do not appear to have a fixed position (e.g., "AH"). also, although era modifiers that always appear before a date appear to fall under your third category, they might not make sense unless used with additional era modifiers. for example, "20 – Heisei10" does not make much sense, while "Meiji20 – Heisei10" does, and "Genji1 – 2" may be misleading if "2" did not refer to "Genji2", since it would likely be simply read as an improperly spaced "Genji1–2".i don't think i had even considered the possibility that you had mentioned in the footnote accompanying the "trad. 1571 – trad. 1588" example, so that put a smile on my face.yes, i believe "ignoring the modifier" ultimately has the same effect as the internal spaces analysis that you've described, as it pertains to modifiers that apply to the entire range.[q] a space that appears between a "modifier [that] applies to the range as a whole" and the range itself necessarily does not "appear[] within a compound that is to be joined to something else by [the dash in question]", since the range already contains the dash in question. also, conversely, if a space next to a modifier does not "appear[] within a compound that is to be joined to something else by [the dash in question]", then the dash must already be within the smallest compound containing the modifier, which means that the modifier "applies to the range as a whole". therefore, i believe ignoring modifiers that apply to the entire range is equivalent to not taking spaces next to modifiers into consideration when they are not internal spaces. do you agree?also, before i draft up a proposal, i wanted to make sure that we agreed on whether "150–50BCE" or "150 – 50BCE" was correct. EEng had believed that the previous guidelines had left it unclear. i had believed that they advocated for a spaced en dash because it was a case "[w]hen era designations ... are present", though i can now see that the use of the word "designations" may imply that more than one era designation had to be present in order for that bullet point to apply. from what i now understand, the representation "((150–50)BCE)" shows that the space between the "50" and the "BCE" is not part of a compound that is joined by a dash, meaning that the space is not an internal space, and therefore, the en dash should not be spaced. one can also arrive at this conclusion by noting that "BCE" is a modifier that applies to the range as a whole, and therefore should be disregarded when determining that "150–50" does not use a spaced en dash. is that correct? dying (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Ravenpuff, it recently occurred to me that it might be simpler to draft the proposal first, and then edit it together if there are any disagreements, as with blurbs on tfar. i have reproduced below what i believe are the relevant bullet points of the guideline, with the original text first and my proposed text following. note that this reply consists of two edits, so that (hopefully) a diff will be able to show what the proposed changes are. some of the comments in the code have also been modified, so looking at the diff may provide more information than simply comparing the visible text below.
of course, for this to work properly, i'm obviously giving permission to edit the proposed text below, waiving any tpo concerns. also, if you feel that any additional bullet points should be addressed, feel free to add them as well. dying (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
original text:
If at least one item on either side of the en dash contains a space, then a spaced en dash ({{snd}}) is used. For example:
[...]
Where era designations, circa or other modifiers are present: reigned 150 BCE – 50 BCE; reigned 5 BC – 12 AD; reigned c. 1393 – 1414. (see § Uncertain, incomplete, or approximate dates)
When birth and death dates are unknown, but the person is known to have been active ("flourishing") during certain years, fl., [[Floruit|fl.]], or {{fl.}} may be used:
Where c., after, or a similar form appears which applies only to one of the two endpoints of the range, use a spaced en dash ({{snd}}) and ideally a non-breaking space should follow very short modifiers such as c.. Examples: 1896 – after 1954, c. 470 – c. 540. Markup:1896{{snd}}after 1954, {{c.|470|540}}.
If the modifier applies to the range as a whole, use an unspaced en dash: fl.1571–1588; traditionally 1571–1588.
proposed text:
In certain cases where at least one item on either side of the en dash contains a space, then a spaced en dash ({{snd}}) is used. For example:
if the modifier applies to only one of the two endpoints of the range, use a spaced en dash: 150 BCE – 50 BCE, 5 BC – 12 AD, c. 1393 – 1414
if the modifier applies to the range as a whole, disregard the modifier: 150–50 BCE, reigned 150 BCE – 50 BCE, reigned 150–50 BCE, r. c. 1393 – 1414, r. 1393–1414.
When birth and death dates are unknown, but the person is known to have been active ("flourishing") during certain years, fl., [[Floruit|fl.]], or {{fl.}} may be used:
Where a modifier applies to the range as a whole, such as fl. and r., use a spaced or unspaced en dash as appropriate to the range if this modifier is disregarded.
Examples: fl.1571–1588, fl. c. 1600 – 1616, r. c. 1353 – 1336BC, r. 1989–2019CE, r. 2019CE – present.
Some modifiers, such as traditionally, around, BH, and CE, sometimes apply to only one endpoint, and sometimes to the whole range. Whether the en dash should be spaced or unspaced should still be determined by the above guidelines, but consider rephrasing if the result is ambiguous or possibly confusing.
traditionally 1571–1588 and traditionally 1571 – 1588 mean two different things, which may not be obvious to the reader.
traditionally 1585 – c. 1590 can have two different meanings, and which one is meant may not be clear.
400 BCE – 200 clearly has BCE applying only to one endpoint, but the range is ambiguous. Consider using 400–200 BCE, 400 BCE – 200 BCE, or 400 BCE – 200 CE, depending on what is meant.
Technically, Taishō 13 – 57 is currently unambiguous (because there is no Taishō 57), but it is better to use both era designations in this case: Taishō 13 – Shōwa 57.
Ideally a non-breaking space should follow very short modifiers such as c., fl., r., b., and d..
here is a link to the initial revision. there is a lot of formatting that could probably be improved, but i tried to emulate what was already present so that we could focus on the content differences first. i don't have any significant preferences regarding the formatting, so i will probably be happy with whatever you choose if you decide to change any of it.
i ended up removing "after" from the introductory sentence of one of the bullet points because i felt that it was possible to use "after" to apply to a range as a whole, such as in "the minister held the office during the 2025–2030 term, so could not hold it again until after 2030–2035 due to term limits". (that bullet point's "after" example still applies, though, so i left it there.) feel free to restore "after" to the introductory sentence if you feel otherwise.
by the way, if one does not treat the '−' (the minus sign, not a dash or hyphen-minus) used in astronomical year numbering as a modifier, then the range "−10–10" appears to be appropriately formatted. this is not ambiguous, but is this desirable? we could consider "−" to be a modifier of the first category, but i hesitate to do this because the '−' seems, at least to me, to be an integral part of the number "−10" rather than a modifier, much like the '0' is. i also do not think it would be appropriate to have a non-breaking space follow the '−', like one generally does with very short modifiers. dying (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
EEng, do you have any additional insight to offer? my assumption is that you have yet to respond due to lack of time rather than lack of interest, as you have stated that you have been meaning to address this. i believe the above proposal removes the current contradiction, resolves some ambiguities, and also addresses your earlier point regarding "150–50BCE" versus "150 – 50BCE". i think it also now provides enough examples to illustrate the main points at issue, without providing so many that it is tedious to read. if you are able to provide any guidance, i would appreciate it. dying (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
You're right about my lacks, though God know's I've wasted plenty of time elsewhere in the interim. Please don't wait for me. Someday I'll come across this discussion in the archives, and at that time I'll tell you everything you've done wrong. EEng05:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
EEng, sounds good. i won't hold how you use your time against you; i am obviously guilty of wasting time elsewhere myself. Ravenpuff has also mentioned not finding any issues after a quick reading, but may raise some additional points in the future.as a point of procedure, should this proposal go through some other process such as an rfc or a !vote, or would it be appropriate to integrate the proposed changes into the guidelines at this point? my gut feeling is that it should probably be implemented at this point, as this issue has already been taking up space on this talk page for an embarrassing number of months, and i am assuming that anyone who regularly visits this page and would want to voice an opinion has already looked it over. however, i did not want to inadvertently violate any standards i may be currently unaware of. dying (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
You're way overthinking this. It's not the secret nuclear war retailiation plan, people have had plenty of time to comment, and you've been super patient. Just in go ahead and do it. EEng23:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
^A change from a preference for two digits, to a preference for four digits, on the right side of year–year ranges was implemented in July 2016 per this RFC.
^however, there is the notable exception of what is described in the guidelines as "'simple' ranges", such as "May–July 1940".
^a use of fl. is given as an example of when a "modifier applies to the range as a whole".
^it was given as an example of the "very short modifiers" following which a non-breaking space should be used.
^the article had previously used "about" instead of "c.", but i changed it because i had felt that the whole sentence had paraphrased its source rather closely. the source appears ambiguous regarding whether "about" applied to both endpoints of the range, but this source makes it more clear that the second date does not appear to be in question.
^ abwhether or not that was the intended behaviour of the floruit template, however, is debatable, as currently, the template also produces a "c." when a second argument is given. i am not sure why that is the case, but i am currently guessing that either it automatically assumes that the endpoint of such a date range is necesssarily approximate, or it is a bug that was introduced when code was copied from the circa template.
^the wording of the guideline right before the mos:topresent section would also need to be changed to conform, as it currently recommends that a spaced en dash be used whenever a modifier is present, regardless of what the modifier modifies.
^in the first solution, if "before" is considered to be a modifier, the en dash would be spaced in both cases, with the specific meaning ambiguous, which is likely not a significant issue since ambiguities are not uncommon in human languages.
^personally, i don't think the template should behave in this manner, as i would assume floruit is used with many date ranges with second endpoints that are not uncertain, including those similar to the one in the original floruit example above.
^of course, this is assuming that all the other conflicting mentions of modifiers are similarly resolved.
^there was no reason you would have known this, but i had added invisible comments to each example i had created to note what actual historical person or event each example was describing, as i had not wanted my examples to be merely theoretical. for the third example, i had referenced the roanoke colony, an early attempt to found a permanent english settlement in the americas. it disappeared under unclear circumstances, so the exact dates of its existence are unknown, but are taken to be traditionally 1585 – c.1590. (i have obviously taken the liberty to use the spaced en dash here, following your analysis.) therefore, my intent in this case had been to use "traditionally" to apply to the range as a whole.the use of this example brings up an additional point, which is similar to the issue i noted when i proposed the second solution in my comment timestamped at 22:16. if the current guidelines are interpreted to necessitate the use of an unspaced en dash, overriding the presence of a space in the range due to other reasons, such as a circa modifier, then "traditionally 1585–c.1590" and "traditionally 1585 – c.1590" would mean different things, with the first used when "traditionally" applied to the range as a whole, and the second used when it applied only to the first endpoint.
^For example, the start and end years might be independently supported by two different traditions, neither of which make any claims about the other.
^The practical solution if any of these awkward cases do happen to arise, of course, is simply to avoid the construction altogether.
^This is admittedly a bit of original research, but should be admissible as a stylistic convention and being outside mainspace, I reckon.
^although you've admitted that your classification was original research, i am perfectly fine with discussing original research on talk pages. after all, i think much, if not most, of what is written on talk pages is original research. my proposal of additional classes to consider is also original research.
^in your description of the internal space analysis, i think you may have meant something along the lines of "appears within a compound that is to be joined to something else by the dash in question", because otherwise, i think some cases where ranges appear within ranges, such as "trad.50–25BC – 100AD", may not be spaced in the way i am assuming you are expecting them to be. my analysis following assumes that this is the case.
2021 vs 2021–present
Hey everyone.
So a big big big debate issue that has been going on for over 2 years is whether 2021–present can be used (in 2019 it was 2019–present, in 2020 it was 2020–present, and if this continues next year, it will be 2022–present etc.). Soap operas used to use just a dash e.g. (2009– = since 2009), but over the past 2 years this was changed to –present. Several editors have said that 2021–present is wrong as 2021 is the present. However, myself and several other editors really do not agree with putting just "2021" as it looks like that event/character/appearance etc took place only in 2021 and has finished/is expected to finish in 2021, and also because sometimes pages are not updated at the end of the year and so it looks like it is giving wrong information. This also goes against other pages that are not soap opera related (for example, at the Duke of Edinburgh page, in the Third Creation area, it says that Prince Charles has been Duke of Edinburgh "2021–present"). In some soap opera articles, I changed "2021" to "Since 2021" to clarify that the characters have been appearing since 2021, rather than just appearing in 2021, but some are also against this. I think 2021–present is very acceptable as yes, 2021 is the present, but February 2021 is not the present etc, and even the beginning of December 1st is not the present either. Although in an ideal world, I would much rather prefer just "2021–" as it was much more simple and created less clutter (also going through the Wikipedia discussions from years ago on this page it seems that many editors disagreed with it in general).
Sorry for the long message, but in a nutshell, we need to decide whether 2021–present is okay to be used and, if not, what alternative we can use (e.g. "Since 2021").
For the automobile project we use {{Infobox_automobile}}, which states "If production started in any year prior to the current year and is still ongoing, 2008–present, et cetera, is the preferred style. However, 2021– is preferable to 2021–present while we are still in 2021." So both forms are allowed but the shorter form is preferred. Stepho talk10:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
MOS:DATERANGE is pretty clear that year–year date ranges should be in the form 2019–present when the specific event(s) covered by the date range began prior to the current year and continue into the present. I'm not understanding why you say an event beginning in 2019 would become a range of 2020–present the following year, especially if it is ongoing. Regarding constructs like 2021–present, MOS:TOPRESENT seems to prefer this over 2021– saying: "do not use incomplete-looking constructs [of that form]. The MoS does give an option to use a range like January 20, 2021 – present in case that is preferred. And I think the MoS has it right in these regards. Best.--John Cline (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
What I meant is that this year, the issue is 2021–present, whilst last year the issue was 2020–present, 2019 was 2019–present etc (basically whichever year it was). Thank you so much for your help! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
If I were writing solely for my own use, I would use "2021-" in these situations. However, we are writing for general use. I seem to recall that such listings are not compatible with screen readers. If that is the case, I would reluctantly agree to not use that formulation. "Since 2021" would then seem to be the best option, as "2021-present" seems ridiculous if the present is still 2021and a bare "2021" suggests a limited duration that begins and ends within that year. --Khajidha (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
PS - Whoops. I missed John Cline's suggestion of forms such as "January 20, 2021 – present", which would be even better. --Khajidha (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Bad scientific examples
The article cites as a good example: "Typically, 1-naphthylamine is synthesized via the Feldenshlager–Glockenspiel process. Or: Feldenshlager–Glockenspiel is the process typically used in the synthesis of 1-naphthylamine."
The first one is OK, but the second one is ungrammatical. It should be written as "The Feldenshlager-Glockenspiel process is the one . . ." As a rule, scientific texts don't refer to processes, reactions, etc., that way; eponyms are used as adjectives ("Diels-Alder adducts are"), but not as stand-alone nouns ("Diels-Alder is the best way . . ."). Samer (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm removing that bulletpoint. I've been uncomfortable with it for years. Stuff like 3SAT is a variant of SAT is just too common nowadays, and widely accepted. And such forms are quite different from 50 soldiers were killed.EEng16:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Format
It would be useful if the comment column of #2.2.1 Formats included a comment and example following "2 September 2001" to the effect that in British English (used in the UK, Australia and elsewhere) commas aren't used unless required by the sentence's grammar and an example such as "On 13 May 2007 Daniel was born." https://www.grammarly.com/blog/how-to-write-dates/. There are many articles with dates in British English style but with unnecessary commas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcljlm (talk • contribs) 08:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Is it? I'm not seeing guidance on whether to write "On 13 May 2007 Daniel was born" or "On 13 May 2007, Daniel was born." What am I missing? NebY (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Should be "Daniel was born on 13 May 2007" or "On 13 May 2007, Daniel was born". Either will do, but this is a basic rule of grammar. Seems outside the scope of MOSNUM. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it's borderline, actually. Since we have the note re comma following the Y in MDY, I'm not sure something on this isn't appropriate. Here's an offering: [35]. EEng15:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Time
I've looked through the whole MoS for Wikipedia, and I haven't found a specific section or article explaining how to format time. Does Wikipedia have set rules for this? For example, if I want to say that a song lasted 3 minutes and 48 seconds, would I format the duration as "3:48" or "3m 48s"?
Sorry - couldn't resist the temptation. Your question deserves a more serious response: I reckon "3:48" and "3 min 48 s" are both OK, but "3m 48s" is not. I would expect there to be guidance to that effect but I've not checked. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking that "1400s" is better than "15th century" in text.
I was a grown man before I was I was facile with the notion that 18th century referred to the 1700s. To this day I usually do a little mental stutter-step to translate "8th century" to the 700s and so on. And I went to college (well, for a bit). Maybe you don't, Dear Reader, but there's a whole lot of people who aren't as smart and literate as you.
We do not have a rule about this that I can find here. But all the examples use "XXth century", except for one which says "When using forms such as the 1900s...". And I think "XXth century" is much more common in text. I don't want a rule, and I don't think every discussion here has to be about making another rule. I'm just thinking that writing "1500s" instead of "16th century" is more clear to more people (in contexts where "1500s" is clearly not meaning 1500-1509), and editors might want to consider this. Herostratus (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but "1500s" means 1500-1509, and contexts where it is sufficiently clear that the whole century is meant are rare. It is a confusing notation, & the Italians handle it better (Quattrocento = 1400 to 1499) but there we are. Attempts by Wikipedia alone to reform things will only lead to further confusion! Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm with you in doing the stutter step, but I think it's just another example of how English is full of confusing (if logical) things. I would point out that English in general and MOS:CENTURY in particular do not use Roman numerals for centuries, though it's common in some languages. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Johnbod, you say "1500s" means 1500–1509, which quite surprises me. I would never come to that conclusion as a first assumption (although I can see it, the same way I can decide to translate left-handed pipe wrench as a wrench for left-handed pipes). I suppose if I read that somebody or something flourished in the early 1700s, I should interpret that to mean from 1700 to 1703 or so? That's not the way I'm used to thinking about this form. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits)01:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
See MOS:DECADE. In turn I was surprised to see that MOS:CENTURY allows either meaning for "the 1700s", but I normally see the decade meaning on WP, & think that only should be allowed, as in most external style guides. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
It flows on from 1710s meaning 1710-1719, 1720s meaning 1720-1729, 17x0 meaning 17x0-17x9. But, like JFP, when I see "1700s" away from any other mention of decades, I naturally think of 1700-1799 and I think most readers will too. I would recommend avoiding that usage and instead use "18th century" (in spite of the mental effort mentioned above), "the first decade of the 1700s", "1700-1709" or similar. Stepho talk05:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes. It would also take mental effort to decode (and doublecheck the decoding) that Napoleon's campaigns and ultimate defeat took place in the early 1800s, the British Empire was dissolved in the mid-1900s and the Soviet Union collapsed in the late 1900s. NebY (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Except that the stated events did not take place in those decades. Instead they took place (roughly - and forgive my ignorance of history if I'm a decade out here and there) in the 1810s, 1950s and 1990s, respectively. I realise you know that, and I presume you are making a point by stating something different. What is that point?
Herostratus began this discussion by suggesting"1400s" is better than "15th century" in text. ... To this day I usually do a little mental stutter-step to translate "8th century" to the 700s and so on. Stepho responded I would recommend avoiding that usage, which I was trying to support by demonstrating that (for example) "1800s" and "1900s" would not clearly mean entire centuries and would also demand effort from the reader. Indeed it seems you would not take them to mean entire centuries either. NebY (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I contend that a large number of readers would treat early 1700s as (roughly) 1700-1720, mid 1700s to mean 1740-1760, and late 1700s to mean 1780-1799. And others (a minority in my part of the world) would treat them as 1700-1702, 1704-6, 1708-1709. Ambiguous terms cause confusion. Hence my recommendation to use other phrases. Stepho talk07:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Complete agreement that such ambiguous terms cause confusion. I even suspect we/readers might process "early 1700s" and "late 1900s" differently, NebY (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree - I think either using xx00s is better. If centuries are used, I think that they should linked so that the reader can see what years they are, e.g. This form of art movement started in the 19th century. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Also something to think about - what is even worse is that xx00 does not necessarily mean xth century... e.g. 1800 is still actually the 18th century as the 19th doesn't start until 1801...DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes that's a distraction from real issues such as, for two connected events that occur in the wee hours of the day that daylight saving time ends, if one occurs at 1:43 and the other occurs at 1:15 but after the clock was rolled back from 2am to 1am... which event occurred "first", and does this violate causality? We need a rule for this. Herostratus (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Remember, folks, Herostratus has become an eponym for someone who commits a criminal act in order to become famous or more recently, someone who starts a new section at WT:MOSNUM to watch it burn. NebY (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Dang. Caught out.
two connected events that occur in the wee hours of the day that daylight saving time ends... We need a rule for this — Actually, we have one: MOS:TIMEZONE - "... the time zone in which an event took place has since changed ... show the UTC or offset appropriate to the clock time in use at the time of the event". Mitch Ames (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
We don't have a rule for this and we don't need one. There is no requirement for a rule about every single possible variation of the English language or for every article to use absolutely standard wording.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
We half have rules as it is is, but they unfortunately encourage ambiguity. I for one would like to see "1800s" meaning the 19th century discouraged - in fact in practice I think it mostly is, and people change it. Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Articles translated from Slavic languages often use roman-numeral signifiers. I can't stand them, and usually change them to the familiar. Tony(talk)07:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Really either is non-excellent. "XXth century" is difficult, "XX00s" potentially confusing. I do think that "the latter half of the 1400s" can be quite clear in context, eg "The first edition was printed in 1423, the second in 1437, and several in the last half of the 1400s", for instance. But yes, there can't be a hard and fast rule. Herostratus (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
"/" in abstract algebra
@EEng: To answer the question you asked in the edit summary of this revert ("is there any evidence that our elite cadre of abstract algebra editors need this guidance?"): The question presupposes that only editors who are familiar with abstract algebra are affected. I was actually cleaning up math notation project-wide for compliance with MOS:BBB and happened to convert some fraction slashes to horizontal fraction bars because that appeared to be the only notation permitted by MOS:FRAC inside <math>...</math>. Another editor pointed out the convention in this subfield was fraction slash only. I thought it would be helpful to note this exception so that in the future editors making articles compliant with MOS:FRAC know enough to check if the topic is related to quotient objects. Otherwise we'd be relying on watchlist editors carefully reading diffs with messy math markup to catch the sort of mistake that I made. -- Beland (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
After observing in passing that somewhere between 99.999% and 99.99% of our editors will have no idea what a quotient object even is, and therefore will be unable to digest this advice, I'm tossing this to our math go-to guy, David Eppstein, for his opinion on the usefulness of something so very, very specific being included here instead of at various math-specific and physics-specific pages. EEng01:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I think MOS:MATH is the right place, instead of here, because those quotient things are mathematical formulas but they aren't numbers (and they definitely aren't dates). The guidance that not all slashes can be turned into vertical fractions is definitely helpful advice, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
When updating isotopes of element pages, in this case isotopes of hydrogen (though this question applies to any and all of them), I'm having difficulties determining how many significant figures to represent in the data tables. I had a short discussion with User:MeasureWell regarding this issue, and we decided to ask for second opinions here because there isn't a clear guideline in the MOS for this.
The lists of isotopes are sourced to {{NUBASE2020}} and {{AME2020 II}} (or earlier versions, such as 2003 or 2016), though apparently the sources themselves are not internally consistent. The PDF for AME2020 II gives most values with 6-7 significant figures (bar exceptions that are known to such high precision) and 1-2 (occasionally 3) digits of uncertainty, which have been in widespread use on WP. However, I was directed to a web/txt version of NUBASE, where there is one file congruent to the PDF giving "rounded" values ([36]) and another giving about 3 more digits in "exact" values ([37])
The problem is that both are supposed to be the same source, yet the "exact" values sometimes have at least 4 digits of uncertainty, which is bad practice in data analysis and renders the extra precision nearly useless. Furthermore, the same file gives mass excess values in energy units to about the same number of significant figures as the "rounded" masses, so I'd also think that a straight unit conversion (E=mc2, adjusted for units) should not introduce additional precision. Keeping smaller relative uncertainties also allows a much more concise and meaningful representation of the data. Taking hydrogen-4 as an example, we have 4.026431867(107354) u "exact" vs. 4.02643(11) u "rounded".
I'm inclined to stick to the latter "rounded" values for these reasons, as it seems to better follow general practice and not clutter data tables with meaningless digits, though I'm unsure if a case can be made for a possible loss of precision (less sure because of the large relative uncertainty) Whatever the general preferred practice is, could it be codified in MOS to encourage more consistent and meaningful data representation and resolve such discrepancies? ComplexRational (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Date format by country is for the date format in the native language (Japanese in this case). The Japanese date format of yyyy-mm-dd is not allowed on English WP in prose. I see no reason to update MOS. The current version of MOS handles a contentious subject quite well in the fairest way possible considering there is no solution that will make everybody happy. Stepho talk23:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for looking at this. It seemed odd to me per WP:WPNOTRS for someone to try and base the "date format" used in a Wikipedia article by citing another Wikipedia article as a reliable source instead of what's written in MOS:DATE, but I figured I'd ask about it here to see if there was something I was missing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposal to adhere to the Manual of Style in an article
Hello.
This is exactly as weird as it sounds. After reverting three (different) edits by me, a user claims that I have to seek consensus for edits intended to make the article adhere to MOS.
It would be detrimental to the project if editors had to seek consensus to edits intended to implement MOS on every single article.
Anything in the MOS by definition has strong consensus, that can and often overrules a "local consensus" that may be attempted at a particular page. You can, if needed formally warn your opposing editor for disruptive editing. Deviating from the MOS must be properly justifed per WP:IAR, which requires a pretty strong reason. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
That way overstates things. There's a certain amount in MOS that slipped in unnoticed, or which doesn't anticipate all possible cases, and (partly because of the foregoing) the bar for deviation is lower than IAR: the application of common sense (as recited in MOS's preamble. EEng14:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Does MOS:NUMRANGE apply to page ranges in notes and citations?
My apologies in advance for bringing drama to this otherwise drama-free zone. I am looking primarily for a link to a previous discussion, but I have been unable to conjure the right search terms for use in the archives of this page.
The actual drama is my own foolishness. Some years ago I read that WP does not have its own Manual of Style. The guidance said use any of the generally accepted MOS's so long as usage is consistent article per article. Thus I was converting page ranges to the Chicago Manual of Style when I saw a mixed use of "pp. 123–5" and "pp. 123–25" and "pp. 123–125" citations. (The CMS says use two or more digits in the second factor.) Somewhere along the line I believe the guidance changed so that WP now has its own, non-external MOS. With apologies to my concerned, distraught, vexed, etc., fellow WikiGnomes I relent and add to my edit count with full-range (or fool-range) page citations. – S. Rich (talk)
Could a mention of this be added to WP:PAGENUM? I've searched for guidance on this in the past, but it never occurred to me that it would be filed under "MOS:Dates and numbers". Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
There is much discussion throughout Wikipedia on the use of IEC prefixes. I didn't know until today about the difference between k and K. (Traditionally K was sometimes used when only upper case was available. I believe K is often used for resistors.) Often in articles, numbers are written with excessive Sigfigs, and I suspect including for computers. kiB/kB is only 2%, and by GiB/GB is 7%, but often enough that is still more precision than is needed. Also, I believe we are allowed to give less precision than the WP:RS when precision isn't needed for the article. I think that means that I agree with the suggestion not to use IEC prefixes most of the time. Gah4 (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The present guidance requires "GB" to be used nearly always, whether the difference between GB and GiB matters or not. Do you agree that GB should be used when the difference matters? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Propose additions to unit-specific guidance for knots
A few minutes ago, I made this edit to the unit-specific guidance for knots, with the intent of reducing the potential for ambiguity in instances where more than one type of airspeed is referred to in a single section. Dondervogel 2 reverted, requesting that I open a discussion in talk regarding the proposed changes. Hence the following, with no ill will intended against Dv2:
Used in aviation contexts for aircraft and wind speeds, and also used in some nautical and general meteorological contexts. When applied to aircraft speeds, kn means KIAS unless stated otherwise; if kn is used for calibrated airspeed, equivalent airspeed, true airspeed, or groundspeed, explicitly state and link to, upon first use, the type of speed being referred to (for instance, kn equivalent airspeed, or, if severely short of space, kn EAS); for airspeeds other than indicated airspeed, the use of the specific abbreviation for the type of airspeed being referred to (such as KEAS) is preferred. When referring to indicated airspeed, either kn or KIAS is permissible. Groundspeeds and wind speeds must use the abbreviation kn only.
Used in aviation contexts for aircraft and wind speeds, and also used in some nautical and general meteorological contexts. When applied to aircraft speeds, kn means KIAS unless stated otherwise; if kn is used for calibrated airspeed, equivalent airspeed, true airspeed, or groundspeed, explicitly state and link to, upon first use, the type of speed being referred to (for instance, kn equivalent airspeed, or, if severely short of space, kn EAS); for airspeeds other than indicated airspeed, the use of the specific abbreviation for the type of airspeed being referred to (such as KEAS) is preferred. When referring to indicated airspeed, either kn or KIAS is permissible. If knots are used to describe multiple different types of airspeed in a single section, the type of airspeed being referred to in each particular case must be specified (either by using the specific abbreviations for each type of airspeed or by spelling out the full long form of the type of airspeed in question) unless the context makes absolutely clear, in every instance, what type of airspeed is being referred to; even then, it is strongly encouraged to explicitly state the type of airspeed being given (this is also strongly encouraged, although not absolutely required, if different types of airspeed are mixed within an article but not within any specific section). Groundspeeds and wind speeds must use the abbreviation kn only.
It seems to me that "the aircraft's speed is 60 KIAS" is a lazy way of writing "the aircraft's indicated airspeed is 60 kn". The latter form is always better, because it makes both the quantity (indicated airspeed) and its value (60 kn)explicit. My concern is that the proposed wording seems to create situations when the explicit form would not be permitted. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from, but, if you're mentioning airspeed several different times in a single article, or, especially, in a single section of an article, writing out the long explicit form each and every time starts getting needlessly clunky (for an example, see Ameristar Charters Flight 9363, which mentions indicated airspeeds three times in fairly-rapid succession, using the long explicit form the first time and KIAS the other two). Edited the proposal to make clear that the proposed changes do not preclude the use of the long explicit form if desired. Whoop whoop pull upBitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes01:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Needless instruction creep Where the distinction between one measurement or another is materially relevant to make, this should be made textually (and if the distinction needs to be made again, then, yes, use abbreviations if necessary, as in any form of text which needs to do this) and there is no need to instruct people to do so. And when there is no distinction necessary, then what's the point? In any case, oppose per WP:CREEP and as not being an actual improvement anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the best thing would be to move this out of the specific section for knots and have a new section that makes it explicit that clarity must come before other considerations and that in any case where there is a risk of confusion avoiding this is more important than sticking rigidly to the guidelines (but worded better than that). This would also resolve the wordiness concerns (with which I agree but as one of the projects more sesquipedalian editors am really not qualified to suggest improvements to). Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm seeing this arcane unit of measurement pop up, for instance with Underground line articles. Chains, not miles, that is. What gives? Why is Wikipedia retrograde here? The conversion template even admits chains is not commonplace or familiar to the readership? Let us not be cute, let us stop this movement to use chains immediately. CapnZapp (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
There was a long discussion here about chains a few years ago. Perhaps in 2019. The consensus then was that chains were to be used in railway articles because apparently that's how railways count distance. In other words it's railways that are backward, not wikipedia. Does anyone know how to find the archive? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Back when I was working for aan engineering company that did railway maintenance (early 2000s), all the official records for mapping and measuring rail lines used miles and chains. Rhialto (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I too could not find any conclusion. Perhaps the proponents of this obscure units just kept talking until everybody else tired of opposing. (See Sealioning). How about a much simpler proposal?
Let us not accept the addition to "chains" as an exception to our MOS, even from British railway related articles.
If the actual original measurement is in chains, then that is the correct original figure and should be retained for technical correctness. Any conversion is an approximation. oknazevad (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Unless there's something mystical going on, we can convert chains to miles or kilometers with perfect accuracy. If we don't know if the chains are Irish, Scottish or English, telling the reader how many chains long something is tells them that we don't know how long it is. In that case, giving a range in kilometers or miles would be better. Chains are cool and traditional. Using the traditional units keeps knowledge in the heads of railway enthusiasts, railway buffs, trainspotters or ferroequinologists (new word for me), but it is incompatible with sharing knowledge with the world. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
In addition to UK railroads, there are several situations where chains are in current use. For example, when finding the width of a town road in Vermont and there is nothing in the records to prove the width, it is 3 chains. In practice, whether the chain is 16.5 US survey feet or 16.5 international feet is undetectable. But if the convert template were to be used in an article about conversions, the distinction would matter, and the convert template does not appear to support US survey measure. So perfect conversions are not supported by the convert module. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you but what units engineers choose is not relevant for the purpose of writing readable and accessible articles for Wikipedia's general readership. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Oknazevad: This argument does not make sense. First off, Wikipedia is not a technical manual so there is nothing wrong with approximations. Second, what unit was originally used is irrelevant. Wikipedia should use modern units used by our readers. Since everybody agrees "chains" is uncommon, our articles on UK rail topics will be improved by removing the use of chains. Third, what SchreiberBike said. CapnZapp (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Stating what units are actually used in a technical measurement is never irrelevant. I object to removing real-world used units for no real purpose other than someone being unfamiliar with them. It defeats the educational purpose of the encyclopedia. Obscure units are not banned here and removal is a wrong-headed idea. oknazevad (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I would also note that this is specifically allowed - nay, required - by the current MOS guidance (UK engineering-related articles... generally use the system of units in which the subject project was drawn up), and that we have general sanctions in place concerning mass-conversion of units on UK articles. Kahastoktalk18:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Stop implicating that I would make a mass conversion unsolicited, User:Kahastok. I am discussing on talk to reach a consensus exactly as intended. Now, current MOS guidance is exactly what I wish changed, so your comment makes no sense. CapnZapp (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
According to Metrication in the United Kingdom#Road and rail transport, Standards relating to the design and building of new road and rail vehicles have been metric since the engineering changeover in the 1970s.[1] and specifically London Underground has converted to using metric units for distances but not for speeds.[2] HOWEVER chains were used when all but the most recent lines were built so translation continues to be needed: whether the original measure should be displayed is a different debate. There is only becomes a problem when metric martyrs want to 'translate' modern engineering specifications back to these obsolete measures. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to list a few things that I consider self-evident.
If a reference gives a figure in chains (and does not supply any modern units) then somewhere in the wiki mark-up of the article that figure must be listed so that other editors can cross checked it against the reference.
If a reference gives a figure in both chains and modern units then the chains figure should be treated as an outdated unit and therefore be ignored - along the same line as cubit.
The figure should always be shown in equivalent modern units, regardless of whether the chains figure is shown or not.
Automatic conversion is better than hand conversion - I trust {{convert}} a lot more than I trust most editor's arithmetic.
Points that are up for discussion:
Which chain ? English, Scottish or US ? I'm not sure which one convert uses. Possibly convert might have to accept multiple chains.
Should the chains figure be shown in addition to the modern units or should it be hidden? Convert can do this both ways:
{{cvt|200|chain|miles km|0}} → 200 chains (3 miles; 4 km)
{{cvt|200|chain|miles km|0|order=out}} → 3 miles (4 km)
Comment Since the [a] (International) mile is 1,609.344 metres and the US survey mile is just 3mm longer at 1,609.347; [b] when counting in chains, the count restarts on reaching 100 (= 1 mile) ∴ the largest valid number of chains is 99; [c] given thermal expansion and contraction and other mechanical factors, 3mm is well within the limits of experimental error. Consequently there is no convincing basis for any need to distinguish between the US survey chain and the "International chain" (if such actually exists). The Scottish chain has been obsolete since a lot longer ago so I think we can trust editors to make the distinction in the very few cases where it is relevant. {{convert}} should not be bogged down in false precision. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The chain is a modern unit of measurement for distance on UK railways.
Insisting that we must distinguish these different kinds of chain is like insisting we have to distinguish whether a second is defined as a fraction of a solar day, as a specific number of oscillations of a caesium atom, or possibly whether it is a French decimal second. On the rare occasion where the word "second" is meaningfully ambiguous, the editor will have to disambiguate. But it is almost never meaningfully ambiguous. Kahastoktalk18:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment I would prefer to see them gone. I never used them in primary school in the 1960s or grammar school in the 1970s and I'm not wanting to use them now. If they are to stay I would suggest we only accept them as a primary measure is given in a reference *and* if *both* full metric and imperial miles (with decimal fractions, not yards or furlongs or poles or perches) are given, and preferably {{convert}} is used. e.g. {{convert|34|mi|69|chain|mi km|sigfig=3|abbr=off}} to give 34 miles 69 chains (34.9 miles; 56.1 kilometres). --10mmsocket (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose change. Absolutely nothing has changed since the last time this was proposed and rejected - there is no benefit to the encyclopaedia in censoring real life based on the preferences of people who don't want to learn something new and no other arguments have been presented. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose change - Miles and chains should be used where appropriate, with conversion to km to 2 decimal places - e.g. {{Hastings Line}}. What is inappropriate is to convert distances in metric to miles and chains. Where the metric system is in use - e.g. Europe, modern UK railways such as HS1, Crossrail etc. In these cases, metric should be used converted to miles to 1 decimal place ({{Channel Tunnel Rail Link}}). Mjroots (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose change Wikipedia follows the sources. Seemingly, much of the British railway industry (and much of the network there, mostly dating from the pre-metric) still uses chains (if you don't believe it, you're free to look up the online sectional appendix). Units can be converted where necessary, and I see no convincing argument why including this information would be inconvenient. We do include information in miles, and conversions to metric, where otherwise necessary. This is no different. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose change - sources led, not creator led. You might as well say that we should get rid of the Fahrenheit system as apart from the US and a small number of others, the rest of the world considers that system obsolete. But Akron, Ohio (for example) has its sources in Fahrenheit, and changing or amending them to fit would be wrong (Original Research?) I know that there will be way more articles using Fahrenheit as opposed to those that use miles and chains, but still..... The joy of all things (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
So why not just provide the original unit and the conversion and let people use whichever they want, instead of trying to remove one? There are many specialised contexts where metric units are not usually used (aviation, for example, where speed is in knots and altitude in feet; or various measures of interstellar distances [parsec, light-years, astronomical units - none of these are strictly metrical/SI units, and you have 3.26 ly in a parsec, and about 63241 au in a ly, so quite non-decimal ratios... as there's already the metre for measuring distances...]) - I don't see anyone forcing these to be metricisised for Wikipedia [and that would be quite a silly exercise indeed - nobody says that the nearest star besides the sun is 4.02 * 10^16 metres]. This is absolutely no different. Nobody measures distances in metres and kilometres where the network is actually measured in miles and chains. There's no reason for us to change it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Except that the network is not really measured in miles and chains. As per 1977 citation already given and standard engineering practice everywhere outside the US, it is measured in SI units. It is only shown (shewn?) in miles and chains for the benefit of traditionalists. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I'll bet that there are parts of the network which haven't been significantly altered (in terms of basic track layout and of the path taken by the railroad itself - i.e. places where there has always been a double-tracked running main lines; or some notable bridges...) since the Victorian era (or at least, since the beginning of the 20th century), so there probably are bits where the measurement truly was made in miles and chains. However, that's entirely irrelevant. The difference between "actually measured in miles and chains" and "measured in metres, but shown in miles and chains for practical reasons" is purely academic. When railway sources, accident reports, ... all almost unanimously use miles and chains, well there's no good reason for Wikipedia (which is an encyclopedia and therefore a summary of the existing sources, not a novel invention) to decide that "miles and chains are antiquated units and we should get rid of them". As encyclopedia writers, we expressly don't take a position (even though, yes, IMHO, metric is better - that's irrelevant here). We just report what the sources say. And if the sources tell us that (taking random examples) Colchester is 51m 52ch from Liverpool Street, and that the branch line at Marks Tey running to Sudbury is (measured from the points) 6m 7ch, we report that, and then we can add for reader convenience that those measurements are 83.12km and 8.59km (respectively). What we don't do is take a position and decide to remove one of the units because it "isn't metric". Should we also go and remove feet everywhere they are used in aviation articles and replace them with metres? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman: - but that's precisely it, in the UK, railways are generally measured in miles and chains. We are not seeking to impose the conversion of metric railways to miles and chains but merely to use them where that is the standard measurement in use. Mjroots (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Imperial units have been retained for both road and railway signage except on new railways. What else do you want? The difference between "measured in metres and converted to miles and chains and displayed as such" and "measured in miles and chains" is entirely academic and of no practical relevance. As far as we know, the distances are given in miles and chains, and that's the unit which the railway does use (plus, speeds limits on British railways [and roads] are also in MPH, so that makes total sense). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Modern total stations will display the distance measured with the electronic distance meter in meters, US survey feet, or international feet. Surveyors in the US predominantly use either US survey feet or international feet, depending on the law in the state where they work. A big reason is that property deeds and historical survey plats are mostly in feet, and only a tiny fraction of existing properties are surveyed in any particular year (or decade). Thus the "right time" to convert never comes.
The internal operation of the total stations is proprietary, so only the manufacturer could say whether the distances are first computed in meters and then converted to some variety of feet, or if the laser measurements are converted from some model-specific internal measurement to some variety of feet. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
It's British ferroequinologists against the world. Probably better than 99 to 1 against chains, but to that 1% it means everything, and the rest of us don't care that much, so we let it go. Let it go. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
This appears to be a classic case where our decision process breaks down when a topic is discussed mostly by the people most interested in said topic. That is, people that does not necessarily realize that what is best for the technical experts might not be for the general public. It is obvious to me the value of Wikipedia is lessened by having rail station articles include archaic and obsolete units of measurements as if that was a reasonable thing to do. It is actively user hostile (compare the kibi disaster that thankfully was averted in the end). That a unit of measurement is used by specialists in the field should be entirely irrelevant for a project like Wikipedia, and had this topic been visited by a representative selection of editors, I am sure the voices in support for presenting this unit to an unsuspecting public would have been drowned out entirely. My conclusion is that the only path forward is to devote enough time soliciting comments from elsewhere, and I'm sorry - I don't feel like it. Instead this will be a case of "you deserve each other". Thanks to those seeing that "the UK rail industry uses this" and "for historic reasons" are really really bad reasons when we're discussing non-technical articles of general interest such as rail station articles. CapnZapp (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
FWIW CapnZapp I don't agree that we need to state chains in the article; so say if Scarborough is 40 miles 15 chains (64.7 km) from York, we could just instead say that Scarborough is 40 miles (64 km) from York. I do object to the "chains is obsolete, let's ignore the references" attitude, as it has been drilled into me by various consensuses, that we are citation driven. I am quite happy to say that station XX is so many miles from station XX and leave out the chains (especially if its a small number like 10 chains). However, most, if not all reliable sources (books, magazines, journals etc), covering British railways, state their distances in miles and chains, which is why I feel it is unwarranted to arbitrarily cast them aside. Incidentally, as above in the first conversion, if you input the link at the end of the conversion template, {{ convert | 40 |mi | 15 | chain | lk=on }} it automatically links chains and miles, so anyone who wants to, can navigate to the chains page and see exactly what the measurement is. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree that we need to state chains in the article Just as a heads-up: I am going to assume you meant to say "I do agree with you CapnZapp we don't need to state chains in the article". Just clarifying since I am arguing the exact opposite of what you appeared to ascribe to me. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
As for the other argument, that we are citation driven. If you (and others) can successfully argue that the authorities use chains in public-facing documents then it is time to confess my ignorance and withdraw my suggestion. But if these citations are of the "technical manual" kind of source, it only reinforces everything I have stated above. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
It is obvious to me the value of Wikipedia is lessened by having rail station articles include archaic and obsolete units of measurements as if that was a reasonable thing to do Why? Even if it were true that chains are "archaic" and "obsolete" (they are neither, being in active, every day use) it is not at all obvious why including them in a Wikipedia article would "lessen the value" of that article. When a subject uses was built to units that, unlike chains, are no longer in every day use we still include them where it is relevant. Is the Great Pyramid of Giza article's value lessened by it giving the dimensions in royal cubits? Is the Bromsgrove article lesser for noting "The town appears to have been founded as a series of plots of sizes between two and four rods (10 and 20 m), marked out along the current High Street."? Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll try to be clear. Bethnal Green is 1 mile 10 chains (1.8 km) from London Liverpool Street,[3] but stating that it is 1-mile (1.6 km) distant is not right as it loses 200 metres (660 ft) on its conversion. However, a crash of a cement train at Sheffield station was listed as being at 158 miles 52 chains (255.3 km), when just plain old 158.5 miles (255.1 km) would do, but again, it loses some 200 metres in the conversion.[4] I don't think they need to be in every article, Edinburgh Waverley is 393 miles 13 chains (632.7 km) from London King's Cross; stating that it is just over 393 miles (632 km) would do for simple reading. I also do not believe in getting rid of chains as a measurement; it has many uses, and it may be appropriate in some railway articles. I object to the refutation of chains, not their use in lots of articles. Example given is a book by Geoffrey Body, which lists many stations and their exact distance from a major railway junction or centre. He uses miles and chains in every one. As for other sources (the authorities use chains?); the following is the London North Western route specification from Network Rail which states on page 8:
“
This secondary urban route leads in an easterly direction from Manchester to Mirfield via Rochdale, with another route diverging to Stalybridge, via Ashton-under-Lyne. The former crosses the London North Western/London North Eastern boundary at 22 miles 62 chains on MVN2 just west of Hebden Bridge.[5]
”
But I would consider this a primary source, however, Network Rail use miles and chains in all their documentation. Publications such as Rail Magazine, Trackmaps etc, ie secondary sources, also all use chains where necessary, and in Trackmaps, every station is listed from a fixed zero point in miles and chains (see images here). The chainage is particularly relevant in crash/accident articles, when the RAIB issue their reports. They do so in miles and chains when necessary, because that is how the distances on UK railways (apart from HS1 and HS2) are measured. The example given here is due to the check rail having a curve radius of "10 chains or less".[6] However, not all RAIB accident reports use chains, they do so when required, which is why I do not advocate deprecating the chains and getting rid of them completely. Chains are also used as a measure of wildfires in the USA! Strange, but that's how they do it. The problem here is in the rounding, which can be quite inaccurate. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I am discussing the usage of chains in general purpose articles such as rail station articles. Distance measurements here does not need to be super accurate - Wikipedia is not a technical manual. Do feel free to use chains in specialist articles, just like, say, articles on mathematical concepts is gobbledygook to the general public. CapnZapp (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Distance measurements do not need to be excessively precise. What that means depends on the context and when greater precision than miles is appropriate (which could be for many reasons) then we should continue to use miles and chains when those units are given by the sources in exactly the same way we do for all the units you don't happen to dislike. We don't intentionally make the encyclopaedia less accurate or dumb it down because a few people don't want others to be able to learn something they don't currently know. I'm also not sure what metric you are using that means articles about tourist attractions and British towns are less "general purpose" than articles about railway stations? To me the former two are the more general. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I swore I wasn't going to say anything more in this rather pointless discussion but let me give you an example of crass failure to WP:think of the reader: the opening sentences of Swindon railway station which read (I kid you not)
Then, in e.g. the Location section, the article might say something like "In the chainage notation traditionally used on British railways, it is 77 miles 23 chains (77.29 mi; 124.4 km) down the line from the zero point at London Paddington".
Would that be too terrible? I doubt that wp:UNDUE was ever designed to cover such cases but if ever there was a case of undue precision (precision that is inappropriate to the context), then surely this is it. CapnZapp, I think this illustrates your point? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes. So very much this. Thing is, we really should not have to explain this. To any normal person, it is completely obvious that, for non-specialist articles (and articles on railway stations are very much general articles) we simply do not mention distances using arcane or exotic units, and especially not in the lead. Whether "chains" are then used in a detailed (technical) context is of much lesser concern, though I maintain that Wikipedia should not be your source for precise measurements. CapnZapp (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Once again, in the context of railways in the United Kingdom chains are no more "arcane" nor "exotic" than things like furlongs are in in horse racing or feet an inches are in US engineering contexts. As for precision, there is simply no reason for Wikipedia to be less precise than the sources. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@CapnZapp:, @Thryduulf:, you are talking past each other. CapnZapp, in the rail industry and to rail fans, chains are no more arcane than parsecs are to astronomers, so it is not helpful to achieving consensus to deny the reality of others in the debate.
Thryduulf, I think you are missing the essential point of "who are we writing for?" Most people who read a station article will just walk away if confronted with what looks to be fanboy stuff in the second sentence. The general principle in most articles is to start with material that is intelligible to most readers then go into increasing levels of detail in the sections and subsections. I contend (but obviously can't prove) that what most visitors want to know is this: how far is it from London and Bristol etc, how far is it from the city or town centre, what are the main destinations and what is the typical frequency of trains.
CapnZapp, I think you are also missing the same essential point. A substantial minority of readers do want to know that level of detail. And they do want authenticity and true reflection of sources. Clearly Wikipedia is not in the business of replicating the Engineers' Line Reference but it should give readers enough information to be able to find such more detailed sources.
I am not a neutral bystander either so my opinion has no special validity. But that doesn't stop me from expressing the view that the Swindon RS article has got the balance wrong, that the precise distance from Paddington is undue in the lead though it should certainly be in an appropriate section of the body. But let's not get bogged down in the detail of this particular article: my main point is that it is entirely valid to give chainage in station articles; the debate is their prominence, where and when they should appear. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Once we agree that it is appropriate to include chains in appropriate places we can discuss what those appropriate places are. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Is there still any credible proposal to deprecate chains? Given the chorus of disapproval above, there is certainly no consensus to do so. I believe we can regard that proposal as closed.
I think that the discussion has moved on to how prominently the measure may feature? which is context dependent of course but I suggest that in the Swindon RS article, for example, the prominence is seriously undue. Can we define that 'context dependency'? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
John Maynard Friedman, a reply to your previous post: It is nearly always true that there exists a special interest group that wants more technical detail - it is not a good argument. I am saying that Wikipedia is made worse by catering to these groups in articles of general interest. When Wikipedia was riddled with "kibibytes" all over the place that meant the project took a significant blow, signaling a transformation away from the real world into some strange and arcane site for neckbeards. Luckily that catastrophe was averted - common sense did prevail in the end. In this case it is absolutely clear that the general reader should not have to read about "chains" in an article about your local train station. In more technical articles? Maybe. In more historical articles? Absolutely! But in everyday articles about railway stations? Insanity. So once more history will repeat itself - currently this discussion topic is dominated by a specialist interest group. Hopefully it will not take long before more general editors notice the strangeness and wash away this nonsense. In the future this will become a lesson in the dangers of allowing MOS exceptions, mark my words. CapnZapp (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
So long as we provide a conversion into sensible units, it doesn't necessarily matter if there is a jargon unit used in a particular context. Not many folk these days have a good grasp of imperial at all, if we're honest, and splitting hairs about which legacy units are "common sense" and which are not isn't something I see as a constructive use of time. From the perspective of someone taught near-exclusively in metric, basically all imperial units are illogically sized and have no natural relation to each other, or more importantly, to any other unit they would use. The chain is not egregious in this regard, any more so than the fluid ounce, the inch of mercury, the yard (which, admittedly, has the redeeming feature of being acceptably close in size to the metre), the furlong, the acre, the pica, the cubic inch, etc – all of which are legacy or jargon units you will still encounter in certain specific contexts. They might well be perceived as abstruse by many people when encountered outside these contexts, sure, but they are still widely used units within those contexts, and WP ultimately aims to reflect such usage without trying to disguise or change it. Same with barns or AU in the appropriate domains of physics. Regardless, so long as an appropriate conversion to more modern units is provided (e.g. converting a railway "chainage" to kilometres – which in any case we are already required to do) it's pretty much a non-issue. Nothing useful is gained IMO by angels-on-pinheads discussions about which imperial units are obscure in what contexts, because we can just convert them into units that most people in the 2020s understand better. Archon 2488 (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
CommentWP:BIKESHED - this is a timesink. This is a Brit railway thing. Almost every Englishman will know what a chain is. Per above, the convert template can deal with this: "In the chainage notation traditionally used on British railways, it is 77 miles 23 chains (77.29 mi; 124.4 km) down the line from the zero point ... This is just a rod (or four) for our own back. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm monitoring a disagreement regarding date formats in US space articles. MOS:DATETIES supports an article such as STS-47 ("the 50th NASA Space Shuttle mission") using mdy dates. However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Style guide included the advice "Dates should be in day-month-year format" for many years apparently due to a NASA style guide which includes "full dates should be in a day-month-year format". The wikiproject guide was updated on 11 January 2022 to remove the advice to use dmy with a discussion at project talk. That discussion includes claims that the NASA style guide is for certain historical documents and is contradicted by recent NASA publications which use mdy. The project talk points out that a local consensus about date formats cannot overrule site-wide conventions so I'm afraid the ball lands here.
Should STS-47 use dmy or mdy? The quick answer would be to thrash it out on article talk, but there is at least one user (see user talk) who appears to want to change any mdy to dmy in all space articles so the issue should be settled in a central location. If an RfC is needed, where should it be held? Johnuniq (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
This section of the MOS In topics where a date format that differs from the usual national one is in customary usage, that format should be used for related articles: for example, articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage. appears to give the US military as just one example of a topic with "customary usage" of another date format. I don't think the MOS needs to be changed in order to decide that NASA is a second example after the US military. I think a RFC on WT:SPACEFLIGHT should be sufficient to establish a second example. The MOS clearly says the military is one example, it's not an exhaustive list. Leijurv (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Like the US military, NASA has DATETIES to dmy (and to the US military). If the subject is primarily notable because of ties to NASA or the US military, then DATETIES reasonably applies accordingly. Henry Hartsfield is a no-brainer. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
It appears that NASA does not currently use DMY, at least when dealing with those outside the Administration. For example, this news release is dated "Feb 10, 2022". An organization I'm familiar with, the Civil Air Patrol, has a convention that might explain this. They use Air Force style for communication within CAP but use the Associated Press Style Book for external communication. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
The NASA style guide may specify DMY, but the NASA website uses MDY uniformly, as well as US-based sources. Furthermore, I think that US-centric space articles are likely to be read by US readers, and it should conform to US norms (much like the use of American English in these articles). Truth be told, I'm not even sure about the military exception for DMY; my experience is limited to the US Air Force, but MDY is certainly still the norm. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
There is no good reason to believe that space related articles are more likely to be read by US readers (unlike articles on local US politics), so better to conform to international norms. Hawkeye7(discuss)19:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't this be the same argument to use British English over American English in US spaceflight articles, as that is the more internationally accepted format of English? Most US sources, which are the bulk of sources for US spaceflight articles, are going to be using MDY format. I'm not disputing the validity of the DMY format, but guidance in MOS:TIES and MOS:DATETIES states that the national norms are what should be used in an article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Even US passports use DMY...Date and time notation in the United States says that the day-month-year format is widely used in the US, including official forms and documents (see the example →), allegedly, "increasing in usage since the early 1980s". I don't think that Americans have any problems understanding it, so why is this insistence on sticking to the illogical local historic MDY order in a worldwide encyclopedia? (Ideally, we should have all dates wrapped in a template that would display them according to user preferences and stop such silly discussions, but nobody would care to implement this.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The page linked states that the norm in the US in MDY. Government and legal documents may use DMY, but almost all US sources will use MDY. I'm all in favor of the worldwide encyclopedia having a standard for things like English variations, date formats, and imperial vs. metric units, but the current MOS guidance is to following national norms when it comes to variations like this. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
The current MOS guidance allows exceptions from MOS:DATETIES, and I believe that this should be viewed as an opportunity to use the more inclusive approach. As I said, Americans have no problems understanding the DMY format, and it is way more common in the rest of the world (to be precise, among people with sufficient English proficiency to read enwiki). Moreover, while formaly NASA is indeed a US government agency, many of its programs are international collaborations (in particular, most Shuttle missions, since the topic started from them, had at least one international crew member), so its work always attract worldwide attention. I could understand that MOS:DATETIES might be beneficial in historic/political articles, such that there is no discrepancy between quoted material and the main text (plus, nobody except Americans or Americanologists cares about them anyway...). But please explain how enforcing a local custom is supposed to improve reading experience in such sci-tech articles? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that US space articles should be an exception to national norms any more so than other US-centric articles that are of international interest and whose subjects are globally involved (e.g. major US corporations, high profile politicians). I think it's fair to say that readers can understand both MDY and DMY formats. I'm all for Wikipedia going to one standard encyclopedia-wide, but if MOS guidance is to use variations, I don't think the global interest in spaceflight and relatively small number of international astronauts and payloads on Space Shuttle flights merits making an exception. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, the norms aren't that normal. Further, MOS guidance is to use variations as appropriate and to WP:RETAIN. The military and NASA are variations within a variation. The argument is therefore somewhat self-defeating. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure why NASA is being treated as if it is a variation of the common US format. Looking at the NASA website, the standard for NASA is MDY on its press releases and publications. This isn't a conversation about the common date format used by US publications and NASA, but rather if spaceflight articles should use DMY because of their international readership. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
This isn't a conversation about the common date format used by US publications and NASA, but rather if spaceflight articles should use DMY because of their international readership. No, it is a conversation about the date format to be used in NASA related articles and whether NASA falls to the same exception as the US military. That you raised an opinion about readership does not make this whole thread/discussion about readership. US-centric space articles are likely to be read by US readers? Cinderella157 (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
These articles already use the 24-hour time format and dates in the UTC time zone, none of which corresponds to "US national norms". Let me ask again: how enforcing the MDY date format in these articles is supposed to improve reading experience? The fact that MOS:DATETIES says "should generally" doesn't mean "must no matter what". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
The sources used for these Space Shuttle missions follow a MDY format. It's a different discussion if these pages should use a different time format and zone. I'm not advocating that MOS:DATETIES should be followed no matter what, but I'm not seeing any reason why the Space Shuttle missions should be an exception to the guidance. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I think WP:Ordinal used to have guidelines on when to use "first" and when to use "1st". I can't find it now. An editor is consistently using "1st" in a sentence when it should be "first". Where is the MOS guideline? Bubba73You talkin' to me?07:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor is making a lot of additions, using "1st" in the middle of a sentence, when "first" is meant. E.g. "This was his 1st film." I corrected one but he reverted it. The user may be a child that hasn't had a writing class yet or may be used to using text messages and not know about written English. Maybe I need to to a RfC. Bubba73You talkin' to me?20:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Agreed: I think the guidance can be deduced by reading between the lines but an explicit statement would be clearer. Certes (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
My first thought was to add something to the NUMNOTES saying "this applies to ordinals too", but the Ordinals section comes immediately next anyway, and explicitly says that Numbers as figures or words applies to ordinals, so it seems like overkill. EEng02:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree with the above. MOS as it stands is explicit that single-digit numerals (no distinction is made between ordinal or cardinal, nor should there be) are spelled out in full. This is the normal stylistic convention in English prose and it's not really controversial as far as I am aware. I have tried to ensure that this is followed, e.g. by using the spell=on flag in the convert template for such numerals, as this is what the MOS calls for. An editor disregarding this is editing against the MOS (and normal English prose conventions). Archon 2488 (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree also. Does this also apply to centuries? MOS:CENTURY says in one place Centuries and millennia are identified using either "Arabic" numerals (the 18th century) or words (the second millennium) Considering that and MOS:1ST together, we should write "first century". But MOS:CENTURY actually uses "1st century" elsewhere. MB18:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Following on from the above conversation, I came here to check it if should be 12th or twelfth in a DYK submission. The guidance remains confusing because under ordinals it says "For guidance on choosing between e.g. 15th and fifteenth, see § Numbers as figures or words" but under that section nothing is mentioned ... or am I missing something? Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:DIGITS says to group multi-digit quantities, with only a few exceptions for years. This looks absolutely horrific for multi-digit fractions, as occur for instance in Harmonic series (mathematics): we get atrocities like "14274301/4084080". Even spacing the slash doesn't help: "14274301 / 4084080". Compare the obvious way of writing this as a horizontal fraction, "14274301/4084080". Can we maybe add an exception that numbers used as part of larger mathematical expressions should not be spaced? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Not to say this disposes of the issue (the whole grouping section looks a bit bloated), but there's another exception to the effect that in math (etc.) articles, grouping should be done by fives. This is only 3/5 as ugly. EEng04:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I guess. Next maybe you can explain how readers are supposed to guess whether 1 23456/34567 means approximately 3.57 or approximately 1.68? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
No I can't. (1) {{frac}} is forbidden for good reason for MOS:MATH (2) you have illustrated my point by guessing incorrectly: the fraction I want to represent is 123456/34567, not 1 + 23456/34567. (3) In this context I want horizontally formatted fractions, not vertical ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm tempted to say we should just let IAR cover cases like this, but my intuition is that in a technical context some will be tempted to claim that rules are rules. I've added a bit of text [38]. EEng02:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Grouping in fractions
WP:DIGITS says to group multi-digit quantities, with only a few exceptions for years. This looks absolutely horrific for multi-digit fractions, as occur for instance in Harmonic series (mathematics): we get atrocities like "14274301/4084080". Even spacing the slash doesn't help: "14274301 / 4084080". Compare the obvious way of writing this as a horizontal fraction, "14274301/4084080". Can we maybe add an exception that numbers used as part of larger mathematical expressions should not be spaced? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Not to say this disposes of the issue (the whole grouping section looks a bit bloated), but there's another exception to the effect that in math (etc.) articles, grouping should be done by fives. This is only 3/5 as ugly. EEng04:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I guess. Next maybe you can explain how readers are supposed to guess whether 1 23456/34567 means approximately 3.57 or approximately 1.68? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
No I can't. (1) {{frac}} is forbidden for good reason for MOS:MATH (2) you have illustrated my point by guessing incorrectly: the fraction I want to represent is 123456/34567, not 1 + 23456/34567. (3) In this context I want horizontally formatted fractions, not vertical ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm tempted to say we should just let IAR cover cases like this, but my intuition is that in a technical context some will be tempted to claim that rules are rules. I've added a bit of text [39]. EEng02:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Currency: 15 USD vs US$15
Would it be acceptable to write "USD" instead of "US$," in situations where disambiguation is needed for the country but not for the fact that USD refers to currency? Just curious, because I like "USD" better. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
This stems from a discussion on WP:ERRORS yesterday. MOS:PERCENT currently states "percent (American English) or per cent (British English)", but that's not quite right. I understand American English does mandate 'percent', but British English allows both forms. Dictionaries split equally on which version they prefer: Cambridge percent,
Oxford per cent, Collins percent, Macmillan per cent. In all cases they list the other version as a valid variant. Style guides seem to follow either Oxford or Cambridge spellings throughout, though the BBC's style guide encourages the % symbol instead. It appears we should not be prescribing one version as 'British' when both are valid in British English.
I suggest a minor tweak to the phrasing:
either percent (American or British English) or per cent (British English only)
per cent would definitely come across as odd in AmEng. Just checked CMS and the entire discussion is about percent vs. % -- apparently per cent (with a space) isn't even on their radar. EEng18:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Fowler now tells us that in BrE two-word is traditional, one-word is now widely used, and "a 12 per-cent increase" is hyphenated. It then discusses single or plural verbs (15% of the population is/are), notes words are less commonly used than numbers even at the start of a sentence (10 percent not Ten percent), and that BrE doesn't use it as a noun replacing percentage (a large percentage, not a large percent), unlike AmE. HTH. NebY (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be surprised to see any American style guide endorsing a large percent of students. Barbarous. EEng19:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
For American formal usage as a noun, I think "percentage" rather than "percent" is considered correct: a large percentage of students. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Google just claimed to find 224,000 results for "a significant percent"![40] I haven't checked them all but some look quite formal. Somewhat relieved to see about 7,120,000 for a significant percentage. NebY (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Idle speculation: "per cent" is not used in American English because it could be misinterpreted as a price, what with US dollars being subdivided into cents. Though the idea of being able to buy anything, let alone multiples of anything, for only one cent is ludicrous these days, it was not always the case and the distinction in American English became enshrined back in those days. That said, to address the initial question, I think removing the claim that British English uses the two-word spelling exclusively is wise; the guides cited here show that to be untrue, as does a quick general examination of British English sources in n-grams. If anything, in the spirit of WP:COMMONALITY we should be encouraging the one-word spelling entirely. Finally, using "percent" instead of "percentage" where the latter is more grammatically correct from a part-of-speech standpoint is sloppy but not unheard of in American English. I would correct it if I saw it. oknazevad (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
The commonality argument did occur to me (I mentioned it in the ERRORS discussion) but I'm not sure how prescriptive about it the other sections of the MOS should be. I'm happy to defer to the more familiar editors here if they think we should just recommend 'percent' throughout. Modest Geniustalk20:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:COMMONALITY and the research above (thank you) make a good case for standardizing on percent. Within articles the choice of either the spelled out word or the symbol can go either way, but should be consistent. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
my preference would be 10 out of 100, and if it is too long, the % sign. then we would get rid of people googling "what percentage is 10 out of 100". as "out of" did not get mentioned here it is maybe not that common, or even worse, confusing? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think a full request for comment is necessary, but if others disagree, we could do that. How does this language change sound?
The current section on percentages says (in full):
In the body of non-scientific/non-technical articles, percent (American English) or per cent (British English) are commonly used: 10 percent; ten percent; 4.5 per cent. Ranges are written ten to twelve per cent or ten to twelve percent, not ten–twelve per cent.
In the body of scientific/technical articles, and in tables and infoboxes of any article, the symbol % (unspaced) is more common: 3%, not 3% or three%. Ranges: 10–12%, not 10%–12% or 10 to 12%.
When expressing the difference between two percentages, do not confuse a percentage change with a change in percentage points.
I propose changing the first bullet point to:
In the body of non-scientific/non-technical articles, percent is commonly used: 10 percent; ten percent; 4.5 percent. Ranges are written ten to twelve percent, not ten–twelve percent. Percent is commonly used in American and British English. Avoid per cent on the basis of WP:COMMONALITY.
I would also Oppose. The two-word version is still the more common in the reputable British media. It would also be better to use the symbol when it follows numbers - we manage with $ and £ so can surely cope with %? If WP adopted the symbol, which is widely recognised, then the word ‘percentage’ covers those instances where a noun is required for a written sentence. MapReader (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose for now. A search of various BrE combinations at Google Ngram shows that per cent is still "the most commonly used current variant" in BrE. Nonetheless, percent is also very common in BrE and could surpass per cent in the next decade—in which case common usage would support this change, and the issue could be readdressed at that point. In any case, the current phrasing "percent (American English)" is inaccurate/misleading and ought to be "percent (American and British English)". Doremo (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
According to MOS:CENTURY: "Centuries and millennia are identified using either "Arabic" numerals (the 18th century) or words (the second millennium). When used adjectivally they contain a hyphen (nineteenth-century painting or 19th-century painting)." (note "nineteenth" in words is acceptable)
But according to MOS:ORDINAL: "For guidance on choosing between e.g. 15th and fifteenth, see § Numbers as figures or words – generally, for single-digit ordinals write first through ninth, not 1st through 9th."
Still, MOS:ERA gives the following example: "But Plotinus lived at the end of the 3rd century AD" ("3rd" instead of "third" seems acceptable)
Also, according to MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32."
So: should all centuries use the same form (numeral vs word) in an article for consistency and per MOS:NUMNOTES? Or should they respect MOS:ORDINAL? Except when they are in the same sentence ("From the fifth to the 11th century" => "From the 5th to the 11th century" or "From the fifth to the eleventh century")?
A general principle in writing directions, unless you're doing something highly technical like programming a computer, is that directions for a specific situation supersedes general directions. MOS:ORDINAL applies to all ordinal numbers. MOS:CENTURY only applies to centuries. Since the latter is a more specific situation than the former, MOS:CENTURY overrides MOS:ORDINAL. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Even if MOS:CENTURY overrides MOS:ORDINAL that doesn't solve the problem: should all centuries in an article follow the same convention? (numbers or words) A455bcd9 (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm shocked that MOS:CENTURY does not say that the choice of numbers or words should be consistent within an article. I've made thousands of edits to make that correction and linked MOS:CENTURY explaining why. I suspect it says it somewhere else and it should be moved into that section. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 15:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this point is mentioned anywhere. Or at least I couldn't find it. If this is the convention (but I'm not sure it is) then for sure it should be moved into that section. We should also mention whether the consistency applied to only centuries or also millennia (i.e. can I write "first millennium" somewhere and "12th century" somewhere else). A455bcd9 (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the number of results on Wikipedia (most frequent in bold):
"first millennium" (2,002) vs "1st millennium" (3,520)
"second millennium" (1,391) vs "2nd millennium" (2,725)
"first century" (15,600) vs "1st century" (12,900) (there's a mistake here because "twenty-first) century" is counted as a valid result. "the first century" gives 4,671 results and "the 1st century" gives 6,046 results.
"second century" (3,868) vs "2nd century" (12,080)
"third century" (3,906) vs "3rd century" (12,970)
"fourth century" (3,978) vs "4th century" (15,413)
"ninth century" (3,375) vs "9th century" (16,662)
"tenth century" (3,170) vs "10th century" (18,499)
"eleventh century" (3,338) vs "11th century" (23,447)
"nineteenth century" (47,118) vs "19th century" (273,263)
"twenty-first century" (8,806) vs "21st century" (322,189)
Given @EEng's edit it seems that MOS:NUMNOTES doesn't apply to the whole page. So we still have the problem: should all centuries use figures? A455bcd9 (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I think "... lived at the end of the 3rd century AD" looks awful in running text and much prefer using words which are allowed according to MOS:CENTURY and preferred according to MOS:ORDINAL, subject to some exceptions. MB19:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
So no consistency throughout an article? (I'm fine with that, I just want to know what the convention is :) ). A455bcd9 (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I wrote the "all spelled out or all in figures" text years ago, so I thought adding nearby one another would help a little. Certainly all-article consistency wasn't intended. EEng19:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying @EEng. So does it mean that according to the current version of the MOS there's a total freedom when it comes to the form (numeric or words) of centuries and millennia? With one exception: the form should be consistent inside a sentence (but not necessarily in the whole article). A455bcd9 (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Please remember that, though I have repeatedly been offered the crown of King of MOSNUM, I've always modestly refused it. So I'm not in charge.
What is the combined effect of all the current provisions scattered here and there (cited by the OP, with one now modified by me as noted)? I'm not sure, too tired to tote it all up.
What do I personally think should be acceptable? To my ear, both word form (first century) and digit form (1st century) seem acceptable for all centuries 1 to 21 (and beyond). But I'll y'all battle this one out, I just don't have the time right now. Maybe you can get the BC-AD / BCE-CE guys and gals involved.
"combined effect of all the current provisions scattered here and there": I understand it as "do whatever you want as long as you're consistent inside a sentence". A455bcd9 (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
MOS:ORDINAL should mention that single-digit centuries are often written as numerals (but that this must be consistently applied in the non-quoted main text of an article. Tony(talk)08:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Or maybe we can update MOS:CENTURY and say that there are two acceptable options:
1. All centuries and millennia as numerals;
2. Single-digit centuries and millennia as words, others as numerals. With the exception set by MOS:NUMNOTES that if single-digit centuries/millennia are nearby double-digit centuries/millennia, the form chosen has to be consistent. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I knew this had been resolved once, but it took me a while to track it down. There was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 138#Centuries format in September 2012 where the consensus was to write "Centuries not in quotes or titles should be either spelled out (eighth century) or in Arabic numeral(s) (8th century). The same style should be used throughout any article." Minor modifications later changed it to "Centuries and millennia not in quotes or titles should be either spelled out (eighth century) or in Arabic numeral(s) (8th century), with in-article consistency."
On March 19, 2014, EEngremoved that paragraph and replaced it with "Centuries are given in figures (the 18th century BCE, not XVIII century) or words (the eighteenth century BCE)."
This removed the phrase "in-article consistency". That was explained on the talk page at the time by EEng that "The bit about in-article consistency isn't needed because that's a general principle given in the boilerplate at the top of the page."
Does MOS:DATETOPRES apply to infoboxes, tables or just prose? If it applies to infoboxes a number of sport projects will need to change their documentation (and many articles) Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players is one example. If not, then this should probably be reverted. Either way, the section on this project should probably make the scope clear. Not watching here, so please ping me if you would like me to respond. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Any reason there should be exceptions? Particularly, it states that ...tables and infoboxes where space is limited, pres. may be used (1982–pres.)—Bagumba (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I suspect someone would need to be bold and start the changes, citing the MOS. If any conflicts arise, a notification here would be appropriate for a broader discussion on whether consensus has changed or an exception is warranted.—Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
You are trying to change how an entire WikiProject operates, and has done with no issues for 16+ years, affecting tens of thousands of articles. GiantSnowman19:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that opinion. I am not trying to change the consensus project; I am trying to follow the consensus of a manual of style. This has been raised before and has always looked odd. It took a great deal of effort to get flags removed from infoboxes by this project (and other projects still don't give a toss). You made your position clear in the discussion. Now, change the manual of style. The football project is again out of step with the project as a whole. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
MOS:DATETOPRES and the broader community consensus seems pretty clear and specifically states "Do not use incomplete-looking constructions such as 1982–", which appears to be what this is all about. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
It would have been nice to have been notified about this discussion given I was quoted, but it's not the kind of courtesy I expect...regardless, I agree with Walter that the MOS should be amended to reflect widespread and long-standing usage (and not the other way around). The 'incomplete-looking constructions' are fine in infoboxes and tables. GiantSnowman18:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, the baseball, basketball, American football, and ice hockey sports projs use "–present" in its infoboxes. Randomly, so does FA Paul McCartney. I wouldn't remove it for one project.—Bagumba (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I have no issue with keeping it generally, but allowing an exception for the literally tens of thousands of articles which ignore it and have done, unchallenged, for decades. FAs such as Steve Bruce don't use it... GiantSnowman19:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: you were encouraged several times, first in the project's talk page, and each time I reverted you, to come here yet you and your expectation of courtesy was essentially to say that the football project has given the manual of style the middle finger, and for me to fall into line with the project and ignore this prohect. Also, you were not quoted, your actions were linked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Rugby Union ([42][43]), Rugby League ([44][45]), Aussie Rules ([46][47]) and GAA ([48][49]) amongst others don't seen to use the 'present' bit. I'd support scrapping the rule for infoboxes as it doesn't appear to be something that is universally used or supported. Number5719:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
It seems clear that the projects should meet the MoS's requirement rather than a requirement to change the MoS because a few sports projects object to implementing it. Is this worth an RfC? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
The problem is people didn't know it existed. If it's going to be enforced, then someone will need a semi-automated way to do it, as we're talking about tens of thousands of articles. I agree that there should be an RFC about it, though just saying "yes, do it" is completely useless unless a method for doing it is worked out too. Nobody should expect this many manual edits to be carried out. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
There aren't tens of thousands of active players with page- almost all current association footballers, which itself would be thousands of articles I imagine. And then there's at least 4 other sports listed (albeit I imagine they have fewer articles, as the sports have not as many countries with professional leagues). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
It's not clear if the resistance to -present is because of the perceived effort involved, or that it's a fundamental problem with –present.—Bagumba (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
For me, it's the issue of effort- I believe the most sensible way to do it would be via a bot, but that would need to go through the strenuous bot approvals process. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. I have been using –pres. as this MoS suggests and it is actually narrower than a four-digit year and it makes the construction complete, which is the goal of this MoS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Sooner or later George Jensen will die, or get promoted to bishop, or resign in disgrace because of the Boy Scout thing, and at that point the terminating year will be chiseled in. That's why the final entry is formatted that way in the meantime. But that consideration doesn't apply to our articles. "Wikipedia is not chiseled in stone", you might say. EEng16:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
You seem to have read my comment backwards. The "open-ended" format is an artifact of situations in which a date will need to be filled in later, on paper or stone; as stated, that consideration is absent here. Furthermore, while no doubt readers will figure the open-ended format out, in infoboxes especially, where a datum may wrap to the next line, it may cause momentary confusion. Pointless confusion. EEng23:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I fully support the viewpoint made by @EEng that Wikipedia is not a paper (or stone) medium, so antiquated formats are not always as much suited for it as more modern up to date formats. Huggums537 (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: How can you assume there is an established standard that conflicts with this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javain_Brown&diff=1083150646&oldid=1083083214 The sooner these lazy, hit a few times too many in the head with a ball, an elbow or other body part, projects get on board the sooner you'll stop being the laughing stock of the whole project. Ignorant, arrogant notability criteria were the first to be overturned and soon your approaches to infoboxes will have to follow suite. Stop edit warring over things in which you're simply wrong about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I have edited the MOS to make it clear that whilst you should generally avoid open ended dates, some sports do and that's fine. That a) reflects the actual usage of certain sports WikiProjects whilst b) not opening the floodgates for implementation in other types of articles (which should continue to use –pres.GiantSnowman19:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I am not the one ignoring this manual of style and rewriting it to make you and the projects with which you work seem to be following the manual of style when in fact you're simply too stubborn to actually change your incorrect ways. I will remind you, first it took the projects months to get onboard with MOS:INFOBOXFLAG (and some projects still insist on ignoring it), and WP:OVERLINK. The most recent discussion finally forced you to acknowledge that per-project notability criteria was out-of-step with the rest of Wikipedia, so it will likely take just as long to have you acknowledge your incorrect position on this MoS.
It is you and your projects who are giving the middle finger to the larger project in ignoring the clear advice of this manual of style. Clearly we see who is being disruptive, and I am not in that camp. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
As shown above, several types of sports biographies do not use the "–present"; this is not a football-specific thing. Number5720:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore, this "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" (my emphasis). If some sports do not chose to use it, that is fine, as long as each topic is consistent. It is not mandated, it is not compulsory. GiantSnowman20:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
That several sports ignore this MoS is not a reason that they should continue to do so, as was the case with INFOBOXFLAG, OVERLINK and others. So in ignoring all rules, I should also feel free to ignore the rules of sort projects and apply the MoS correctly, without repercussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Changing the MOS to make it appear that your side of the argument is supported by MOS is poor sportsmanship, at best. I have undone these edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
The MOS is not compulsory - and it is clear that it is not preferred (and has not been for a long time!) by several sports. So why should we not update the MOS to reflect real-life wide useage, as opposed to now having a 'wrong' MOS that editors use as justification for disruptive editing? GiantSnowman07:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
The MOS is not compulsory only in the same sense that high-quality writing or proper sourcing are not compulsory: many of our articles fail to meet these desiderata, but when these problems are encountered they should be fixed, not set in stone with project-specific carveouts like "we've always failed to source our articles in this project so bad sourcing is now declared ok for this project's articles". —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
sourcing/verifiability is a core policy; whether or not we display 2017— or 2017—pres. in the infoboxes of sports people is not. Unsure why you are suggesting I read AGF - that in itself is ABF. The irony. GiantSnowman09:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Flags in the infobox of sport people are not required, but the littered football, rugby, ice hockey and other sports's infoboxes when GiantSnowman and I started editing many years ago. That is no longer the case. Why? A MoS was created and its correctness was adopted across most projects, including football articles. I cannot recall if GiantSnowman reverted my removal of them when I started that practice over a decade ago, but I have not seen GiantSnowman revert my removal of them recently.
Linking of nations of birth (such as England, Scotland, Germany, France, Spain, United States and other major nations) was done in almost every single infobox at that same time. That is no longer the case. Why? The same reason as the previous example: a MoS.
I have made this point several times and really all that is required is for the projects to recognize the MoS and accept its use or reverse it across all projects. Being on the fence about this or any manual of style is really not an option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Commas between digits in comma-separated lists of numbers
Over on Talk:Euclid–Mullin sequence, someone with more MOS knowledge than common sense suggested modifying a comma-separated list of numbers (of widely varying numbers of digits) to add more commas separating groups of digits, and someone else with more MOS knowledge than common sense agreed. I was horrified to see that WP:DIGITS does not warn against doing this. Maybe it should? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
That's rather amusing to watch (rofl). Thank you for brightening up my morning! To be honest, rather than invent exceptions to a general rule I would prefer to change the rule by replacing the thousand-separator-commas with thin spaces, leaving no ambiguity in the comma-separated list. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The point of this thread is not to ask for reasonable alternatives. The MOS already makes that part clear. It is to seek a change to the MOS that explicitly discourages comma-separated digit groups in comma-separated numbers, rather than having to rely on the common sense of Wikipedia editors not to do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Consider this scenario: an article has many single numbers throughout the article as 123,456,789 but no lists. Then we add a list of 10 such large numbers. Do we make the numbers in that list with commas (same as the others but violating the new MOS), make the numbers in that list with spaces (different to the other numbers) or change all the other numbers to spaces (change of style for the entire article)? Stepho talk21:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The passage in the article mentioned by David Eppstein is
I suggest that in this day and age, this passage should not be considered human-readable. Maybe 80 years ago a passage like this might have been considered human readable, because the printing press was almost all we had for disseminating information. But today, trying to retype a passage like this by hand would be irresponsible. So this kind of information should be in some machine-readable format. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
It certainly conveys to me, a human reader, much important information about the subject: the presence of many small prime numbers but also the way it bounces seemingly at random between very small and very large numbers. What it is not, really, is human-writable: it takes so much effort to manually enter the digits and check them for accuracy that we're better off copying and pasting. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
(Late to the party) The point of this thread is ... to seek a change to the MOS that explicitly discourages comma-separated digit groups in comma-separated numbers. Separating list items with semicolons is an established method for text that also includes commas ("Queen Abi; Gordon, professor of punctuation; Eric ....) and may even be becoming more popular. Semicolon-separated number lists are easily imported into eg Excel. Should we recommend semicolons? NebY (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
For a mathematics article (the context of this specific issue), that would most likely be misinterpreted as a subdivision of a list of numbers into smaller sub-lists. You know, like the rows of Pascal's triangle are 1; 1, 1; 1, 2, 1; 1, 3, 3, 1; ... —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
The Australian Commonwealth Style Guide recommends using spaces instead of commas for separating digit groups this reason. Hawkeye7(discuss)19:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm in favor of the comma seperating thousands - I dislike the skinny space - it looks ambiguous. A case like this sequence could separate the terms with semicolons or be put into a table. Also, in the case of this sequence, I would not separate by thousands anyway. Bubba73You talkin' to me?20:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Look at this
Sometimes figures and words carry different meanings; for example, Every locker except one was searched implies there is a single exception (without specifying which), while Every locker except 1 was searched means that locker number 1 was the only locker not searched.
Suppose we change the statement and its variants to being about a locker numbered 128. Suppose we had thousands of lockers and we want to know how to interpret this statement:
Every locker except 128 was searched.
How would we say it to indicate that exactly 128 lockers were not searched??
How would we say it to indicate that locker #128 was the only locker that was not searched??
OK, I'm going to try one more time: is there an actual article, right now, in the editing of which this issue arises, yes or no? And if Yes, what is that article? EEng21:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
OK, well, apparently the answer is No. And since I cannot for the life of me understand what you're talking about (though it sounds a bit like this [50]), I guess we'll have to leave it at that. EEng22:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Where should ISO 8601 date format be used?
I noticed 2001-09-02 is acceptable in some conditions when space is limited, same goes with 2 Sep 2001 and all other abbreviated formats like Sep 2, 2001
Formats like 2 September 2001 and September 2, 2001 are allowed everywhere, in an American article it's September 2, 2001 whereas in a British article it's 2 September 2001
Formats like 2001-09 are unacceptable as it could be mistaken by a range of ranges 2001–2009, and formats like 02-09-2001 are unacceptable as it could mean February 9, 2001 or 2 September 2001, and 01-09-02 could mean January 9, 2002 in MDY format, 1 September 2002 in DMY format, or 2001 September 2 in YMD format
A template like {{FULLDATE|type=mdy|time=2001-09-02}} outputs as September 2, 2001
or in DMY format {{FULLDATE|type=dmy|time=2001-09-02}} outputs as 2 September 2001
Indeed, and that's not how WP:MOSNUM works. We don't itemise for each date format, numerical format, unit of measurement etc every situation in which it can or should be used, and quite right too. NebY (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
From MOS:DATEFORMAT, "Only in limited situations where brevity is helpful". In practice, this means it is allowed (but not mandated and not always enthusiastically received) in tables and references but never in normal prose (ie article text or captions). There are nuances but that covers the majority of likely uses. Some editors love them and some editors think they are evil incarnate. Stepho talk12:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
My personal preference is to use them only for access-dates and archive-dates in references, but not even for the main publication dates of the references. (This variation is one of the ones specifically mentioned by the MOS.) My intention in using this formatting is to emphasize the reader-primary parts of the reference dating (the publication date of the reference) and to de-emphasize the editor-primary parts. It's allowed to use ISO dates for the main publication dates of references, but I don't like seeing them there. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The only time I've used them is when there's some odd sort order thing that can't be resolved some other way (and in notes in my own userspace). I like YYYY-MM-DD personally. I think in a perfect world it's the only thing we would use. When I figured it out some time in the 1990s, I used it a lot and tried to get other people to use it, but I failed. I failed miserably. Many intelligent people, even computer pros, could not wrap their heads around it. They see 2022-05-30 and don't even recognize it as a date. I don't think we should use it at all in anything readers see because we are here to communicate to readers, not to meet our own needs. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Meaning of "conservative" when rounding
I propose that this text needs clarification, because the meaning of the word "conservative" in this context is not clear:
Where explicit uncertainty is unavailable (or is unimportant for the article's purposes) round to an appropriate number of significant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative.
If "conservative" means "resisting change", then rounding conservatively means keeping more significant digits (making less change to the original value, but the next sentence Precise values ... should be used only where stable and appropriate ..., or significant ... implies that fewer significant digits are generally preferred, which would be consistent with "conservative" meaning "cautious, moderate" (fewer significant digits are more likely to be "correct" within the precision implied by those fewer significant digits).
In most circumstances, measuring with more precision takes more effort. Implying that conservative (ie, less effort) means less precision. Stepho talk12:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
measuring with more precision takes more effort — That's true, but Wikipedia editors are never measuring anything, we are reporting what others have done. In the sentence I quoted from MOS:UNCERTAINTY we are explicitly rounding an existing value. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
The meaning of "a normal and expected way" also seems to be unclear, as I keep seeing editors in film articles apparently not understanding how to round numbers and rounding the same number inconsistently. This guideline does not make it explicitly clear how normal rounding works, ie that more than half .5 or higher rounds up (or that 30 seconds or more rounds up if it is minute, etc). I don't know if editors do not understand the basic mathematics of how normal rounding works or if they are oblivious and decided to truncate instead of round the numbers (some people are all right brain and can't do math). -- 109.77.199.246 (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The example you give is a very reasonable approach that avoids exaggeration. A film that has grossed $398.9m has certainly reached $398m, but not $399m, or rounding even more, $400m. I see someone with a similar IP address to yours has been arguing a similar point at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Gross "over" with little support. NebY (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
In old Wikipedia Project film discussions editors certainly did raise the concerns that rounding of certain figures might potentially be misleading (it isn't a billion dollar film until it actually goes over a billion) but the discussions did not recommend inconsistently rounding figures either, they always pointed back to MOS:LARGENUM. I was going to ask politely ask the editor to follow the normal rules for rounding numbers until I saw that MOS:LARGENUM does not actually make it clear what is meant by "normal" rounding. Yes I have raised similar issues before, Wikipedia not following its own guidelines is frequently discouraging, and the consensus not being written out as guidelines to get people on the same page can also be discouraging. It is interesting that you interpreted that old discussion as "very little support", I saw it very differently, as editors not wanting to be heavy handed about enforcing guidelines, something being "fine", not wrong, or acceptable does not make it good, and certainly does not make it "best practice" for an encyclopedia article. At the end of the discussion experienced editors like Erik (responsible for writing large chunks of WP:MOSFILM) acknowledge that it would probably be better not to be unnecessarily inconsistent, bringing the discussion to a conclusion. Sure there are other possible reasonable approaches, I'm merely asking that this guideline be a bit clearer about which reasonable approach was indicated by the old discussions and consensus that lead to this guideline being written in the first place. Rounding the same figure to $100.6 million and to $100 million the next moment is inconsistent for no good reason, if both numbers were even rounded the say way I would have left well enough alone. There is so much misleading Hollywood accounting going on, marketing costs are unclear, budget figures are dubious, so rounding the numbers in film articles is for the best, but an encyclopedia should at least try to keep things consistent from one paragraph to the next and follow the existing MOS:LARGENUM guidelines based on past consensus unless and until WP:MOSFILM decides there is consensus to do things some other way for film articles specifically. -- 109.77.199.246 (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I sometimes see an editor add a weekday name to a date in an article. For example, changing "X occurred on 19 June 2022" to "X occurred on Saturday, 19 June 2022". This seems to me to be unnecessary, except in a very few cases where the day of the week is relevant to the event, but it's not clear to me whether it actually violates the MOS. I don't see any mention in the MOS of using or not using weekday names in dates. Should such changes be reverted, ignored, or even encouraged? CodeTalker (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I thought it was in our MoS, but I can't find it now. Like you said, "unnecessary, except in a very few cases where the day of the week is relevant to the event" like the attack on Pearl Harbor (an attack will be more successful when people were away from the defenses for the weekend), but usually it's not. I've taken out days of the week many times and no one has objected. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
The bottom line is that day-of-week shouldn't be included unless it has some special significance. (Those discussions give a couple of examples.) EEng01:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Is there a reason this is not stated in the MOS? Or am I just missing it? It seems a waste of editors' time to have this information buried in old discussions, so that it needs to be re-discussed every couple of years, when there seems to be a clear consensus about it. CodeTalker (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:MOSBLOAT. You say you "sometimes" see this. Me too. When I see it I fix it, and I don't remember getting any argument. Assuming that's been your experience as well, then the question is, what's the benefit of adding a rule to MOS? EEng16:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Proposal to change template:GBP so that it produces £, not GB£
My suggestion is for the template to generate "£ [...] stg." when distinction is necessary. Would it be possible for someone to work out how to code this? Thanks. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
The coding is trivial. Unfortunately I was rather busy this week and wasn't able to contribute much to the conversation. Over the weekend I will comment on the various pluses and minuses of such a change. Stepho talk12:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree. It is a valid abbreviation that is used in specialist media but I have never seen it elsewhere, so it is not appropriate for Wikipedia's generalist readership. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
This situation is impossible.
We need to disambiguate, yet apparently all sourceable abbreviations are "not appropriate" and we end up going round in ever-decreasing circles..
MOS:ABBR tells us to use sourceable abbreviations:
Avoid making up new abbreviations, especially acronyms. For example, "International Feline Federation" is good as a translation of Fédération Internationale Féline, but neither the anglicisation nor the reduction IFF is used by the organisation; use the original name and its official abbreviation, FIFe.
"GB£" is not sourced, at best it is a clumsy attempt to imitate the format of the "US$" abbreviation, and is not used by any reliable source anywhere. The fact the template touts it as "the standard abbreviation" is verging very dangerously towards WP:HOAX territory, as it gives WP:UNDUE weight to WP:NOTRELIABLE sources.
The World Bank's citation of "£ [...] stg" as a disambiguating qualification and the demonstrable sourceable uses from many august publications on economic and financial affairs is, in my opinion, of far greater value in determining what abbreviation ought to be used than a children's maths book from Jamaica (the first result for "GB£" that appeared in Google Books when I searched, and it was several pages of results deep). Since Wikipedia uses hyperlinks to direct readers to information I do not see why it ought not to be used in conjunction with a link. A quick hover over the link by the user will clear everything up, it isn't like a paper encyclopaedia where one needs to look up abbreviations in a glossary or appendix. Wikipedia uses many abbreviations in many contexts that might not be familiar to users on first glance unless they check the link. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion in a central place at Template talk:GBP. Splitting the discussion to multiple places makes it hard to keep track or requires repeating the same arguments in multiple places - confusing, unhelpful and frustrating. I will address your points there tonight (Australian timezone) after I have finished my day job. Stepho talk04:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Small integers in math contexts
Currently there is a rule that numbers are not spelled out in mathematical formulas. I think that this rule should be widened. Spelled numbers look somewhat strange in any mathematical text, not only in formulas, if they are considered as mathematical objects. But if a number in a mathematical text is simply a number of objects then it is good and sometimes even very desirable to spell it out. For example: "The smallest three prime numbers are 2, 3, 5." In my opinion, it is very undesirable to write this as "The smallest three prime numbers are two, three, five.", but just this way of writing is technically the best one according to the current Wikipedia rules. I propose to change the rules according to this explanation. D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I would assume this is already done without thinking about it much, just as common sense. Do we need to call it out specifically? I completely agree with the statement; I'm just not sure whether we have to write it down. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's automatically "common sense" when it's looked at in the way the OP is describing. As the MOS, currently, states implicitly that "The smallest three prime numbers are two, three, five." is the consensus way to do things. The addition of one solid sentence would clarify things (assuming, as we are, that there is consensus for this). 21:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primergrey (talk • contribs)
I'd agree that "The smallest three prime numbers are 2, 3, 5" makes more sense and looks better. How should we modify the language of the Manual of Style? SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm a little confused, EEng. You think there might need not to be a rule, but you added it anyway, because it's so easy???
(That said, I'm coming around to the view that if the MoS as literally read actively requires the style we don't want, then an enumerated exception probably makes sense.) --Trovatore (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Because it was just a minor extension of existing text, I figured what the hell. Call me flighty. EEng18:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
i am admittedly a bit wary about declaring that all instances of "numbers as numbers" should be written with numerals, as it may have unintended consequences, such as the googol issue EEng mentioned in a comment in this edit. (also, i would prefer to state "zero-sum game" rather than "0-sum game", and "roots of unity" rather than "roots of 1".) since the main issue appears to be the guideline "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words", what if we drafted an exception that addresses this guideline directly instead? consider the following:
Integers from zero to nine, used in a mathematical context, are not required to be spelled out: the prime numbers 2, 3, and 5, not the prime numbers two, three, and five.
note that the statement "the first three primes are 2, 3, and 5" was replaced to avoid the issue of alternative definitions of prime numbers. dying (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
First, to get this out of the way: no one has seriously advocated treating 1 as prime for 100 years, so no need to worry about "alternative definitions". Now then ...
I knew I would regret going down this path. I've tried patching the situation [52], but I again (ahem!) call on my good friend David Eppstein to help us all out of this thicket. EEng05:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Dying's wariness here. I think we should allow numbers as numbers to be written in digits, but not require them to be written that way. There are too many exceptions to try to enumerate them. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I do think we need specific wording saying that numbers-written-using-digits should be allowed for mathematics even when MOS would suggest numbers-as-words in non-mathematical articles. But I think they should be allowed, not required. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
If the event's specific date, which consists of the day and month, is unknown but the year is the same as the event before it, may "in the same year" be used? —Princess Faye(my talk)09:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
EEng, regarding your comment in the summary of this edit, i think the second counterexample in the first column ("9. June") suggests that the "dot to the day" was referencing the ordinal dot. however, now that "to the day or" has been removed, i am admittedly somewhat worried that readers who see the second counterexample and its associated comment may be confused about how abbreviated months are relevant to the counterexample "9. June". would it have been more helpful to, for example, link "to the day" to the description of the ordinal dot? alternatively, the cell in the third column containing the comment can be split into two rows, one for each of the two counterexamples. dying (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Apparently, this guideline says we don’t have to use a comma after the year if we write “On 5 May 1822 the act became law” but we do have to use a comma after the year if we write “On May 5, 1822 the act became law”. This seems like a really silly distinction. Is it for real? Even in an article title? This issue has arisen today at Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it's for real. The comma is not needed in the context of DMY dates, but "May 5, 1822" is an MDY date, not a DMY date. For MDY dates, MOS:DATE says "A comma follows the year unless other punctuation obviates it". And MOS:DATECOMMA says "Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year", and examples are provided:
Correct:
He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands.
Incorrect:
He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands.
Its prescription is unconditional in that regard. So in my view it has addressed that situation by not making a special exception for it. However, it is often best to avoid the construction, e.g., by rephrasing as "The court reconsidered its privilege order of July 12, 2001." But the comma question has been contentious. You can find some prior discussions in the archives of this talk page and the main WP:MOS talk page. I don't know whether anyone has previously suggested treating the adjective usage as different. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
BarrelProof is correct. The comma belongs there for structural reasons as part of a pair of bracketing commas. It's there for the same reason that one comes after "Oklahoma" in the same example text. (And it would still need to be there if "Chattanooga, Oklahoma," were being used adjectivally.) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Not unless it's part of a longer phrase. I don't think anyone would argue that such a title should end with a comma. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, that’s an exception then (unless we consider the examples to be limiting). Anyway, thanks for the discussion, gotta go now. There would be little purpose in giving examples if they are not limiting. Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Of course not, User:Primergrey. As I understand, User:BarrelProof has argued here that we should follow what the rule literally says, regardless of whether the examples are limited to dates that are used as nouns, and the rule literally says “A comma follows the year unless other punctuation obviates it”. There is no punctuation to obviate the need for a comma in the article title Attack on the U.S. Capitol of January 6, 2021, so a comma would be needed at the end according to his insistence that we read the rule literally without regard to the examples. In contrast, my view is that the examples are limiting, so this policy only applies to dates in text, not in titles, and especially not to dates in titles when the date is used as an adjective rather than a noun. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant is attempting a reductio ad absurdum and should not be entertained any further. No one sane would expect an article title to end in a comma, so this discussion should not even have begun much less continued. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Surely you would never think proper a title that says Capitol attack of January 6, 2021, As I said on the talk page the editor is referring to, this is a bad faith, literalist interpretation of the DATECOMMA. Obviously all titles on Wikipedia do not have ending punctuation. Thrakkx (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Some titles end with exclamation points. Others end with parentheses. But I agree we should not interpret DATECOMMA to require it in this case, because the examples given in DATECOMMA do not suggest it. Nor do the examples suggest using a comma after a date when the date is used as an adjective. There’s nothing “bad faith” about wanting to follow the examples. (And if you had a decent argument, I doubt you’d be flinging around accusations of bad faith.) Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The adjective/noun form of the date is irrelevant here. The year is a parenthetical, and must be set apart from the larger phrase by commas. Your examples are misleading; the explanation point in Wham! is part of the duo's official name, and parentheses are a Wikipedia-specific convention for disambiguation. Thrakkx (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Your observations about Wham and disambiguating are correct, but that doesn’t make what I said “misleading” or “bad faith”. I was simply pointing out that you were incorrect to say that “Obviously all titles on Wikipedia do not have ending punctuation.” Some clearly do. It should be possible to have a civil conversation without personal attacks. Anyway, thanks for the discussion, and I am outta here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
These guidelines do not consider the date being used as a noun or adjective, but rather the fact that the year in a month–day–year format is a parenthetical, which is set apart from the rest of a phrase or sentence with commas. This is clearly explained in DATECOMMA: The [year] is treated as parenthetical.Thrakkx (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
It's not a coincidence. The cabal leaves these little clues to torment us. But do you have a proposal to change the MoS regarding adjectival uses and any examples of cases where applying the current MoS to adjectival uses has caused problems, disputes or unfortunate results? The "on"+date and "of"+date examples above are all noun uses. NebY (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I’ll leave guideline edits up to the cabal. I was more interested in whether we should treat the current rule as confined to the type of examples given, or instead should be read literally as extending to further situations, or should be read some other way. The argument at article talk was about whether the title January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol requires a second comma, and I said no. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The noun/adjective form is irrelevant here as Hawkeye7 and I have already pointed out. Why are the examples missing adjective form? Because it's an awkward writing convention that editors clearly borrow from journalese.
She was frustrated with her December 15, 2021, jury duty.
is clearly inferior to
She was frustrated with the jury duty she served on December 15, 2021.
Same applies for other parentheticals used in adjective form:
Adding a line on the South Sudanese pound plus miscellany
The South Sudanese pound has no unique symbolic abbreviation, it exclusively uses an unadorned £. For distinction I recommend advising £10,000SSP be used, with the ISO code appending the numerals.
Discussions on several pages have concluded that ₤ is merely a stylistic choice and is not regarded as a distinct separate sign from £ in general usage, and that the only reason for its inclusion as a separate character from £ in Unicode is for compatibility with a legacy character set (HP Roman). I recommend noting that and advising against its use anywhere due to compatibility problems that would arise.
The Egyptian pound sign displayed on this page is also a point of contention. E£ was taken out of the Egyptian pound's article after it was found to lack any reliably sourced citations (the correct sign is £E or LE).
And my last point on currency is that Wikipedia's sign for the Australian dollar, A$, is not recommended by style guides and is not used by the Reserve Bank of Australia, these sources use $A. Countries with a recent strong British heritage usually place the disambiguating abbreviation after the currency sign, not before it. It is a minor swap, but not all currencies use the US dollar's abbreviation as a template. The Australian and New Zealand dollars inherited this practice from their £sd-based currencies, which were abbreviated £A and £NZ respectively.
Finally (you can all breathe a sigh of relief), I believe it is probably more efficacious for UK-centric articles to always display the imperial units first followed by an SI conversion. The BBC recommends this usage in their style guide. Especially as it is likely more use of imperial will be made in the future.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Late final!!! I strongly disagree. We should follow the sources. Just because the Minister for reinstatement of the nineteenth century thinks it a good idea to return to primitive weights and measures (and £sd too, allegedly), does not mean that it is going to happen. He got a chorus of disapproval from industry. So all that will happen is that it will be legal for market traders to have price cards that say "Banana's £2 a pound" without an (unenforced) legal obligation to have a subtitle that says "£4.40 a kilo". Transport engineers will continue to specify in SI units as they have done for at least 50 years and then some jobsworth will be paid to translate the numbers for US visitors and slow learners Tory party members. Strong oppose any change to the MOS to reflect this passing phase.
Do I at least have approval on the Egyptian pound's sign?
I am also simply trying to be NPOV on the units due to widespread official use and comprehension by the public, one gauges altitude in feet, your shoes are in barleycorns, your screen size is in inches, one measures fuel consumption in miles per gallon and one walks 500 miles! TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Comments. First, if you think saying I believe it is probably more efficacious for UK-centric articles to always display the imperial units first followed by an SI conversion means we can all breathe a sigh of relief, you're mistaken. You've basically just whacked a hornets nest with a stick. I strongly oppose making such a change in this area.
On the rest, before approving such changes, I would like to hear what Australian editors and New Zealand editors have to say about this before recommending a change, bearing in mind that when giving style guidance we are generally more interested in what people actually do than what is officially considered correct. I am not aware of any great movement by Australians or New Zealanders telling us that our current advice is wrong. I would also question whether it is necessary to list every currency on the planet on this page and what symbol should be used, which is the implication to my mind of insisting on listing the South Sudanese Pound. Kahastoktalk19:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of the hot-button issue I seem to have pressed, do I at least have approval for changing E£ to £E and correcting the issue with the double bar pound sign? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest U+20A4₤LIRA SIGN is anything more than a character for compatibility with a legacy character set and is not a truly distinct sign. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying, but a single point I made seems to have obscured it unfortunately. I'm eager because these consensuses were established on the relevant pages. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article Egyptian pound and the talk page discussion, and I can't see a single source on any of them that demonstrates your point, except for the image on this Numista page, which is user-generated content. Even if it weren't, inferring modern common usage from a single instance of usage on a 90-year-old banknote is some fairly extreme WP:OR. I see you claiming to have provided "extremely good reliable sources", but none appear to be actually cited - this was the first substantive alteration to the talk page since October 2013. I note that your claim consensuses were established on the relevant pages seems inaccurate on the case of Egyptian pound, where the "consensus" is the WP:WRONGVERSION from when you were blocked for edit warring. Kahastoktalk07:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The article was restored to a point before the edit war, before my references were added. I had included examples such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica and in the talk page I provided examples of sources such as Egyptian stamps, such as this stamp of 2002. The consensus we reached was that the most common sign for the currency is LE and if the pound sign is used at all for the Egyptian pound, it should be in the form of £E. In the edit war I was actually trying to respect the consensus and establish LE as the main symbol in preference to using the pound sign, £ is just a stylised L afterall. I also took out pound sign references that were unsubstantiated for examples such as the Israeli pound, which was almost always abbreviated IL. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you don't feel able to provide a link either to the discussion where such consensus was reached, or to any reliable source that supports your claim? Kahastoktalk16:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I see. So when you refer to "sources", what you mean is two images of unknown provenance, plus a post that you wrote on a Wikipedia talk page declaring that you provided sources. There's nothing else here. And when you refer to "consensus", what you actually mean is that the other guy didn't continue edit warring straight after coming back off block.
Given the lack of apparent evidence for the claim you wish to make, given that it's based on a claimed consensus that does not appear to exist in reality, I oppose this change. Kahastoktalk19:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
So you support retaining an unsourced claim? The Central Bank of Egypt uses LE, demonstrably from their own website, may I use this at least? E£ is completely unsourced and likely constitutes a WP:HOAX.
Are none of these reliable sources? I would greatly prefer LE be used instead of E£. While £E is not as common as it once was, E£ is never used at all. I used Numista for the banknote source because the Wikimedia Commons file of the same banknote was lower resolution.
@Kahastok Just giving you a ping. The banknote and stamp were only the pictorial references I cited (I actually also cited another Egyptian stamp, a revenue stamp prominently displaying £E), I cited text references as well (including the Britannica article, the Statesman's Year-Book and the Central Bank of Egypt linked above). I and @John Maynard Friedman worked together to find a consensus: that being that LE is most commonly used, £E is mainly used in historic material and that E£ is completely wrong and has no reliable verifying sources. I initially preferred £E but discussing with JMF persuaded me to side with LE, which is what triggered the edit war. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
As I have been mentioned in dispatches, I should clarify the background a little. MatthewS. validly pointed out on the article talk page that consensus means that the agreement or assent of those opposed to change has been secured, unless there is a preponderance of opinion towards one interpretation. With only we three participants in the discussion, that option was not realistic and it was a mistake to suppose that MatthewS's [actually rather brief] silence signified assent. I tried to open a discussion on the points of difference but, by the time I looked again, a full scale edit war had broken out and both editors got a 48-hour block. Personally, I don't intend to participate further in that debate as I don't consider the issue one of any great significance. What we have is a content dispute that should be resolved in good faith and cooperatively at the article talk page, not here. The first line of escalation should be to the relevant WikiProject, again not here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I have now withdrawn my comments save for the point about resolving the issue with the explanation of the double-bar pound sign and the use of the unsourced E£ glyph, as these are clearly flaws demonstrable by all known evidence. For the former, no evidence has been found these two Unicode characters have any true real-world distinction beyond being separately encoded for compatibility with a legacy character set on a series of old HP printers. There is no evidence that either has ever enjoyed an official status as an independent sign from the other. And for the latter E£ appears in no reliable source anywhere as far as anyone has been able to establish besides unofficial use by certain FOREX websites, certainly no use by any banks or media outlets.
This is all I seek to establish consensus on now, the changing of things that are clearly and demonstrably incorrect as they have no decent supporting citations. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
On the specific point of the example we give at MOS:NUM#Currencies, {{tq|"(e.g. the Egyptian pound, E£)}"}, I agree with TCG that this is a bad example. Searching online, I can only see it being used by those many currency-conversion sites (what is their business model? hosting Google ads?) and i strongly suspect they have lazily got it from Wikipedia. I can't find an authoritative and current modern source stating that £E is correct, though the CIA's World Factbook had it in 2000. In short
(e.g. the Egyptian pound, E£) is either weird and unsafe or just plain wrong
(e.g. the Egyptian pound, £E) would be historically sound but now unusual
no example at all would be fine - Egyptian, Lebanese and Syrian practice has largely or maybe completely moved away from using the £ symbol, and my first impression is that Sudan and South Sudan have too. NebY (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
In the light of NebY's comments, I see I missed in my earlier response (00:12, 13 August 2022 above) the fact that there is also a problem with the wording of the MOS and that it is not just a content dispute at the Egyptian pound article. In case I'm not the only one to have missed the original point of this discussion, the relevant text is at MOS:£ and reads
For the British pound sterling (GBP), use the £ symbol, with one horizontal bar, not the double-barred ₤ (which is used for Italian lira). For non-British currencies that use pounds or a pound symbol (e.g. the Egyptian pound, E£) use the symbol conventionally employed for that currency.
I agree with NeBy: the MOS section should be revised to read
For the British pound sterling (GBP), use the £ symbol, with one horizontal bar, not the double-barred ₤ symbol ("lira sign") (Whether a pound sign uses one or two bars is purely a type-design choice.) For non-British currencies that use pounds, use the symbol or abbreviation conventionally employed for that currency, if any.
Does that clarify matters? (BTW, U+20A4₤LIRA SIGN was not particularly used for the Italian lira: it only exists in Unicode because the Consortium allocated a code-point to provide a migration path for HP printers. Users of the Cifrão are rightfully miffed that they were not offered the same concession.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I am broadly in agreement with @NebY and @John Maynard Friedman. The Egyptian pound seems to have largely stopped using £E by the early 2010s and now almost exclusively uses LE. I agree that those currency conversion sites appear to have taken their references from Wikipedia rather than using actual sources.
My proposal for the re-wording is this:
For the British pound sterling (GBP), use U+00A3£POUND SIGN, not U+20A4₤LIRA SIGN (the latter being a code-point for a legacy character set. Whether a pound sign uses one or two bars is purely a type-design choice.) For other currencies named "pound" or similar, use the symbol or abbreviation conventionally employed for that currency, if any.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I have fixed the template {{GBP}} that the default display is just the pound sign, and requires adding "long=yes" to display "GB" before that. This should not require any other change across pages that use it. --Masem (t) 03:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I think I can support the last version of the wording, above. Even "use the symbol or abbreviation conventionally employed for that currency, if any" is fine; "A$" (in the side point above), like IR£ is simply the symbol or abbreviation conventionally employed for the Australian dollar (or Irish pound/punt, respectively). If we feel it necessary to do so, then add a concise example:
For the British pound sterling (GBP), use U+00A3£POUND SIGN, not U+20A4₤LIRA SIGN (the latter being a code-point for a legacy character set; whether a pound sign uses one or two bars is purely a type-design choice). For other currencies named "pound" or similar, use the symbol or abbreviation conventionally employed for that currency, if any – e.g. IR£ for Irish Pound (IEP).
The broader issue (below) will take a lot longer to resolve so unless anyone objects, I propose to change the MOS to read:
For the British pound sterling (GBP), use the £ symbol with one horizontal bar (U+00A3£POUND SIGN), not the double-barred ₤ symbol (U+20A4₤LIRA SIGN) (Whether a pound sign uses one or two bars is purely a type-design choice.) For non-British currencies that use "pounds", use the symbol or abbreviation conventionally employed for that currency, if any.
Early April's Fool proposal, let's use country code + # to indicate pounds. Say goodbye to £ and GBP/EGP, say hello to BR# and EG#. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}09:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that a broader issue here is that TheCurrencyGuy is interested in "cleaning up" currency notation across a wide variety of Wikipedia pages, and he is often running into conflicts because the notation he chooses isn't always exactly right, or doesn't quite have consensus. I know that MOS creep is an issue but, since currencies are used on a wide variety of Wikipedia pages, it doesn't seem absurd to me to have a subpage (or just somewhat expand the section of this page) where the actual notations are listed for a variety of currencies.....then people interested in cleaning up currency notations on Wikipedia could get consensus for the style there before deploying it on many pages. I think the situation is not always clear. For example, in languages that don't use the Latin alphabet, the currency notation that is generally used "in the wild" is not always the one that is used in English-language sources.... CapitalSasha ~ talk16:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Are there, or do we expect there to be, a lot of "people interested in cleaning up currency notations on Wikipedia"? I rather get the impression that TCG has found so much to do because no-one else has been.
It's an interesting suggestion but my first thought is that the talk page for a currency (eg Australian dollar) is usually the best place to discuss it, and if one doesn't exist then the country's talk page, if only because that's where you'll find other editors familiar with or interested in that currency. NebY (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance, but doesn't the World Bank or IMF or ISO someone have a list of the all the names / abbreviations / symbols / codes? WP can't be the first organization to have faced this problem. EEng14:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes and no. ISO 4217 provides alpha (USD, GBP, EUR etc) and numeric (840, 826, 978 etc) codes, allowing for unambiguous identification and trading. That means there's no need for agreed standard symbols, and various countries have several in common use eg Egypt's LE, £E and ج.م, perhaps less commonly L.E., a stylised .S.E. on early notes while still under British hegemony, and who knows what else - maybe plain £ in some contexts in the late 19th or early 20th century? The World Bank and the IMF have no need to keep track of all these usages (and of course no power to impose standards or even require consistency) so long as ISO 4217 codes can be used. NebY (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The World Bank do have a style guide which includes a list of suggested currency abbreviations/symbols on page 134.
The World Bank's list seems to be largely complete and accurate and I would not be opposed to using it as a basis for Wikipedia's style. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
List of circulating currencies does have a column of symbols, but I don't know how good it is or how constructive it would be to link to it from WP:MOSNUM. The article seems fairly stable and the talk page comparatively quiet; it's possible a lot of relevant work on individual currency or country pages isn't echoed there. NebY (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Currency symbol also has a list of symbols. However it seems that no one (that I have heard in the discussion) wants to use the non-Latin alphabet symbols (e.g. ج.م). Also, for many currencies, there are several alternatives. One that has come up in TheCurrencyGuy's editing is the use of /= as the symbol for the shilling in East African countries - it is not 100% clear to me that this is actually being used as a currency symbol, versus the slash being a separator" and the equals sign representing "no cents." CapitalSasha ~ talk17:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
It would be a fine point whether in pre-decimalisation UK usage, the slash in 10/6 was a mere separator or also the sole currency symbol. (Don't believe the poster; it was about two years since they'd first played together.) However, since usage such as £2/10/6 for pounds, shillings and pence was normal, it's hard to see the slashes as stylised letters s. NebY (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
On reflection, I think the / in 10/6 is a signifier (that it's a price) and a separator, but not a symbol, as also in £2/10/6 as opposed to £2 10s 6d. NebY (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC) cratch that NebY (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Its actually quite a complex question to answer to be honest, given how, yes, "/" often also separated pounds and pence. The East African currencies directly inherited their notation from the sterling notation for shillings (with "cents" substituting pence) this Kenyan stamp for example gives its denomination as 1/20. I think the issue might be that the wedge shape solidus is not supported by unicode. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Prose forms such as before 1980, since 1980, in the middle of 1980 and so on aren't covered here because there's not been contention about them requiring guidance here and we try to avoid cluttering Wikipedia's style guide with general advice on writing English. "1980–" isn't in WP:TOPRESENT because consensus is against that usage on Wikipedia, and this has been discussed and reaffirmed repeatedly over the years. If you're interested in reading some of those past discussions, search for "present" in the archives searchbox above. NebY (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Where Neby says if you're interested, I'd change that to "If you're interested and prepared to be bored to tears". EEng15:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Over the years this issue has come up again and again: whether it is okay to use "2022–present" (or whatever the current year is; last year it was "2021–present", next year it will be "2023–present" etc). This used to not be an issue as on soap articles etc we would format ranges like "2022–", "2021–", "1991–2009, 2011–" etc, but now several editors are opposing to "2022–present" due to 2022 being the present, and to put "2022" on list articles (e.g. List of Days of Our Lives cast members). However, this causes many issues such as:
1.) Putting simply "2022" suggests that the event has already been completed, especially as in the past "2022" would mean that the stint is already finished whereas "2022–" or "2022–present" means that it is ongoing. This is especially true in things such as lists of characters, as many cast members appear in guest stints and thus "2022" suggests that the stint has already ended/is confirmed to end this year. For example "1999–2008, 2022" looks like the stint in 2022 has already been completed, whereas "2022–present" illustrates that it is still ongoing.
2.) This is inconsistent with other wikipedia lists, where "2022–" or "2022–present" is used in lists
3.) It is inconsistent with the MOS technically as the MOS says to use "–present" and not just "2022" if it is the current year
4.) Often they are not updated the following year and thus this makes it incorrect as wrong (e.g. I recently found an article which said just "2020" instead of "2020–present"/"2020–"
In the past I have tried to avoid unambiguity by using "Since 2022" in tables, but this is quite unusual as it differs from other articles. Even though we are in 2022, "2022" is also not technically the present - January 2022 is not the present, and even August 18 is not the present. Hence, I have started this discussion to allow the use of "2022–present" and avoid the ambiguous use of simply "2022" for ongoing events/durations. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
This is not the same – what I am asking is there to be clarity on whether "2022–present" (or even "2022–") to be used as some editors keep reverting it to simply "2022" but this is extremely ambiguous DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
This was discussed in 2019, under the heading 2019 vs. 2019–present. As Stepho-wrs put it then, "Unfortunately, MOS:DATETOPRES does not cover what happens when the start year is the present year." It still doesn't. Suggestions included adding the month, or (updating the suggestions) "beginning 2022" or "since 2022". I agree that "2022-present" looks weird in 2022, and it's little comfort that it'll look better in a few months. NebY (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Magazine issue dates
Currently this guideline MOS:SEASON says magazine issue dates should be lower-case -- there's an example given: details appeared in Quarterly Review, summer 2015. I think this should be changed. The sources I use for magazine articles invariably capitalize the initial letter of the season in these cases. Some examples:
"In the sixteen issues that appeared until Spring 1942, Tales of Wonder published..." (Tymn & Ashley (1985), Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Weird Fiction Magazines, p. 654.)
"...'Up There' (Science Fiction Quarterly, Summer 1942), which spoofs..." (Ashley (2000),The Time Machines, p. 163.)
"In Spring 1955, as the most popular magazine..." (Malcolm Edwards, in Nicholls (1978) Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, p. 569.)
I also tried looking in Google Books for "fall 1943 issue" to see what the usage is. The genre uses appear to be exclusively uppercase, but the non-genre magazines vary. I found:
"a Fall 1943 issue of Boston and Maine Railroad magazine"
"first appeared in the Fall 1943 issue"
"writing in the fall 1943 issue of Tropiques"
"reached print in the Fall 1943 issue of Thrilling Wonder Stories"
"The magazine I had purchased then was the Fall 1943 issue of Startling Stories"
"it would first appear in the Fall 1943 issue of"
"and the story appeared its fall 1943 issue"
"in the Fall, 1943, issue of Planet Stories"
"Diana Prince transforms herself in the Fall 1943 issue of"
"writing in the fall 1943 issue of Illinois Conservation"
"concluding in the Fall 1943 issue of the Chronicle"
Eight with uppercase, three with lowercase. I think we could change the guidance to say either "upper or lower case is OK", or we could say upper case is preferred. I don't think we can say "follow the source" because here we have two sources differing in referring to the same magazine. And I don't think it should stay as lower case; that's clearly not the customary usage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
It appears I inserted the details appeared in Quarterly Review, summer 2015 example back in 2016 [57], but (as seen in that diff) with Summer capitalized. It was decapped earlier this year [58], and I've reverted that. EEng20:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The usual convention in running text is lower case. But in the style guides I've checked, it's upper case when giving publication dates in citations. I don't think I've seen any style guide address the question of magazine publication dates in running text. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
And I don't trust the data above, since it's skewed to the mid-20th century, when capitalization of random stuff was a lot more common. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
There's an interesting discussion at Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet). As far as I can see, the article was started in British English, was peer-reviewed in 2007 in that dialect, but has recently drifted to using US English. There seems to be some confusion about date formatting versus spelling variants there. I don't have the patience to argue it out, having made all the points I can. It might be helpful to have some input from folks with experience of MOS:RETAIN and how it works there. The worst of it is that this is in danger of derailing an otherwise positive FAC for this otherwise pretty good article. Thanks for any time you can spare. John (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at the linked talk page above about the heading for the binary versions of kilo/mega/giga/etc. Separate from the ongoing disruption, which will need to be dealt with at AN/I most likely, there is currently an attempt to defy our sources and this guidance in the MOS by referring to the units as "Legacy" (which is both unsupported by the sources, original research, and the only attempts to justify it are done by misattributing a JEDEC standard quoting an IEEE statement). —Locke Cole • t • c20:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
There is currently an edit war over the placement of comments. 🤦♂️ So the link at the top may only get you part way there depending on when you click on it. —Locke Cole • t • c18:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Repeating the time zone
TLDR: I don't think we should repeat the time zone designation throughout an article and I can't find it in the MOS. Is it in there? Where? If not, should it be?
Boring content yadda yadda: I've found the guidance on time zones but if guidance exists on repeating them I have not seen it yet – please enlighten me.
What I mean is that I understand that it may be desirable/necessary to specify the time zone when we are talking about an event (or, at least, we like to pretend it is, but that is another debate) but I don't see any guidance on whether it is necessary to repeat it every time we mention a time, when some (I) might argue that it has an annoying choppy effect on the text and is ludicrously unnecessary when the context has already been set. I find this just annoying: At 0830 BST DBaK made some coffee and by 0835 BST was applying milk and yoghurt to some cereal. At 0930 BST he sat down to read about the Queen's funeral and by 0945 BST he was ready to throw the laptop across the room because it said BST twelve frakking times in the one article set in the same few days in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so it's not like it's going to suddenly change to Pacific Daylight Time halfway through the story ffs. At 1000 BST he talked to the dog for a while then at 1005 BST he made some coffee because meh.
Now I realize that if the MOS doesn't say don't do it then some editors, about whom I am trying not to be too rude, will argue that of course it is right and proper and that the Queen's article is just great saying BST twelve times. As I say, if this guidance does exist then I have sadly failed to find it, and if it doesn't exist then I think it should. Even if it said "yeah you should put the time zone in every time you mention it" then I could sortof live with that because at least it would be there in black and white, but I find the current absence (is it?) of anything on this very unhelpful. And yes of course I wish I could find something that said don't repeat it unless there is a really good reason to, but I haven't yet. Does it exist and if not should it? Help! Thanks and best to all DBaK (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Since nobody else has replied.
I don't think there's guidance on this point specifically, beyond a certain dose of common sense and good writing style. Don't keep on telling the reader something they already know. As a rule, I'd anticipate that the reader will infer that times will be local time unless told otherwise. Now, it's probably useful to clarify what that is at first instance, and obviously clarity is needed if multiple time zones are used in the same article or where the local time is not obvious. But you are allowed to assume that the reader is reading the article and you don't need to keep making the same point over and over again. Kahastoktalk18:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
An article needs to give a time zone exactly to the extent it needs to say AD for AD years: probably at most once, and maybe not at all. As mentioned, the reader will assume that times are local to the events described, and unless there's some international influence, specifying how the local time relates to Greenwich (which is what you're doing when you give a time zone) is superfluous -- that's what I mean by "maybe not at all".All of this, of course, assumes there isn't a mixture of time zones involved. EEng20:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
P.S. And in most cases you won't have an RS telling you what the time zone is anyway, in which case we'd be indulging in OR to give it. EEng05:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Most articles do not need time zones but some do. Military articles often deal with multiple time zones. The times when World War I and World War II began were set according to particular time zones and diplomatic efforts occurred concurrently in multiple time zones. It is quite common for the two sides to be using different time zones, sometimes neither being local time. This occurred, for example, in the Falklands War. It's also possible for events to occur on different days depending on the time zone. Pearl Harbor was bombed on 8 December here in Australia. And the Battle of Midway was fought across the international date line. I suggest that when relevant we use the NATO format eg 07:12K Hawkeye7(discuss)21:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
That article, Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, attracted many editors eager to help by adding something and a few editors working to keep the article in shape, with about 90 edits on the day you posted here. Some may have copied other's poor choices, thinking them the norm, and it must have been hard sometimes to take an overview and correct it. Happily, when you did correct it, your correction seemed to stick. Sadly, I don't imagine editors specifying BST yet again would have checked the MOS first. NebY (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you all so much for the exceedingly helpful and clued-up replies. I can't remember when I saw so much common sense all in one place! What I see above here is a pretty fair summary of what I feel is about right – use it if you need to, repeat it if you have to, then shush. Sounds good to me. Thanks, all DBaK (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
so much common sense all in one place! – We like to purge ourselves of our monthly quota of required common sense as quickly as possible. Now we'll return to our usual menu of half-baked drive-by comments, parochial backbiting, and long-term score-settling. EEng05:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
YYYY-MM-- for sorting when the day of the month is omitted?
I see YYYY-MM-- could be the alternative to YYYY-MM, because of sorting dates, when the day of month is included you can use YYYYMMDD to sort as ISO 8601 allows both YYYY-MM-DD and YYYYMMDD, but when the day of the month is omitted only YYYY-MM is allowed, but MOS:DATEFORMAT doesn't allow that format at all because of the range of years, YYYY-MM-DD can only be used where space is limited, and cite sources. 2001-07 is not permitted due to the ambiguity of range of years, 2001-07-- could be used in some places.
For an example
When the day of the month is included.
American article - {{sort|20010902|September 2, 2001}} - September 2, 2001
European article - {{sort|20010902|2 September 2001}} - 2 September 2001
Based on what I read here, I attempted to add the converter tool to dollars for £2.192 billion. I used the following surrounded by {{ }}: To USD round|2192000000|GBR|2022 It results in:
i believe "year" is a named parameter for that template, despite the syntax section of the template documentation suggesting otherwise. also, the template has not been updated with data for the year 2022, and uses data from the year 2019 by default. the exchange rate being used by the template for 2019 is 0.783445110011929, as seen in the code here, which is why the output value is likely larger than what you were expecting. dying (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
NTFS
Can we get some extra eyes over to NTFS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there are a number of editors revert warring over using IEC units in an article that clearly uses standard metric units. Worse, they're mixing units within the same statement, leading to a confusing experience for our readers. I'd standardized on the correct unit, but am being blindly reverted against the guidance of WP:COMPUNITS. Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c16:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
The article has currently been revert warred back to an erroneous revision with mixed WP:COMPUNITS that are referring to the same unit of measure with different terms. I've started a discussion on the talk page there, but the editors appear to be forcing a WP:LOCALCON overriding the consensus here. See Talk:NTFS#IEC unit shenanigans. —Locke Cole • t • c15:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
RFC: Column name/position/content for binary computing units
Section § Grouping of digits now says "Markup: Templates {{val}} and {{gaps}} may be used to produce this formatting. .. use of any space character as a separator .. is problematic for screen readers". It is unclear whether the two templates prevent, ie solve, that issue or have the same issue. BTW, that issue might also occur with copy/paste effect: "Does {{val}} result in correct copy/space effects in this?" (iow, does c/p produce spaced number strings, IMO undesired?). DePiep (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Val uses some magic (probably copied from gaps, I forget) which means the spaces are displayed but not copied:
I've added a clarification.[59] I've also removed that clarification-needed tag, which isn't required to promote a live talk-page discussion (imagine if everyone added such a tag to the MOS every time they statrted a discussion here). It's debatable whether we should be concerned with whether values can be conveniently copied and pasted, and into what; the output of the val/gaps templates is better for spreadsheets but not necessarily for word processors. NebY (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Comma after year-only date
The MOS doesn't come right out and say it, but since "On 5 May 1822 the act became law" (with no comma) is correct, I have assumed that "In 1822 the act became law" (with no comma after the year) is also correct. I don't normally remove a comma if it's already there, but lately I've been seeing a plague of people adding commas to this kind of sentence, and I sometimes revert if that's the only change being made in an edit. The comma doesn't belong, does it? GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Same as On Monday he went home. Comma or no comma -- it's correct either way, but (all other things being equal) best omit it unless there's some special reason to cause the reader to pause. EEng22:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
However, the examples given are short, where there's little chance of ambiguity or misreading. Where it's a longer sentence, setting off an introductory phrase of time, or any introductory phrase that's either out of its usual place or can be seen as an absolute construction, makes more sense. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. A comma belongs in there. This is one of those things that editors from different backgrounds are never going to agree on. As either style is acceptable, don't editwar about it. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Singular vs plural of distance units in swimming races
Is there some good reason why most articles about electric vehicles use "kW-hr" instead of "kWh"? I checked the cited sources for a few of them and as far as I can tell the sources all use "kWh". Apparently "kW-hr" is sometimes used by the US government. Search for "kW-hr"GA-RT-22 (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
There only BIPM-sanctioned symbols for the kilowatt hour are kW·h (with a mid-dot) and kW h (without). Those are both acceptable here. Also acceptable is kWh, which was added to the list of acceptable unit symbols because it is the unit symbol specified by the IEEE. I suggest replacing kW-hr with kWh. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
MOS:UNITSYMBOLS has Exception: In some topic areas, such as power engineering, certain products take neither space nor ⋅. Follow the practice of reliable sources in the article's topic area. Wh, VA, Ah kWh, MVA, GAh. As you've found reliable sources use in the topic area of electric vehicles use kWh, that's what I'd expect to see in our articles.
(To qualify Dondervogel 2's comment slightly, the mid-dot and space are the BIPM-sanctioned styles in general, but the BIPM (eg in SI brochure 9) doesn't mention kW·h or kW h, as the SI unit of energy is the joule.) NebY (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I stand corrected. While the hour (symbol h) is accepted for use alongside SI units, that's different from accepting the kilowatt-hour as a unit of energy. It remains the case that kW·h, kW h and kWh are all accepted by MOSNUM, and should be used in preference to kW-hr or similar. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd very much support kWh over the other options just based on what is most commonly used for (large) batteries and (in my more limited experience) electric cars. Hobit (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Why are we using "No." instead of "#"? - take 2
A few months ago I inquired about this, but didn't get any responses, so figured I'd try again. My results below are slightly off due to the time passed FYI.
The current MOS is to use No. instead of #, but I'm wondering why this is. It's only been discussed a few times, most recently back in 2016. From what I gathered, using "No." instead of "#" is more popular in the U.K., but not in the U.S., so why should the U.S. articles adopt the same style?
I know this is a piss poor example, but I quickly searched on Google "#11 on the" and got 65million results. Then I searched for "No. 11 on the" and only got 418,000 results ("his album reached #11 on The Chart" & "his album reached No. 11 on The Chart" was my thinking). I then did the same thing for Wikipedia. "#11 on the" got 21,800 results and "No. 11 on the" got 1,790 results. Wouldn't it be a waste of time trying to convert all of that? If the total amount was similar in both cases, it'd be understandable, but there's no way that "No." will catch up (so to speak) with "#".
I'm also aware that Twitter popularized the usage of "#" as a tag, but I don't think that matters much on Wikipedia since we rarely use it in that way here, except in edit summaries. Was hoping someone could shine some light on all of this for me. Thanks in advance. Xanarki (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
That seems to be my exact thinking. Why did someone go through the trouble of writing out the guidelines to use "No." instead of "#", when "#" is clearly the more popular and used style? It's gonna be more complicated trying to convert everything to "No.", and will be (is currently) a waste of time trudging through all of the instances. I personally would get rid of the guidelines (only the mentions of restricting/using "No." and "#")...or simply allow both instances if people still feel strongly about "No." (depending on the country/scenario). Xanarki (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The idea that # meant number was near-unknown in Britain until the internet came along. I have a memory of a family member once confusing an American server by asking for "hash 5" from the menu. And you will still find people who will not understand it. I don't believe the same is true of No. in the US. MOS:COMMONALITY would require that we prefer No.. Kahastoktalk21:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Our article "British and keyboards" seems to indicate that # is not present on British computer keyboards. If so, requiring the use of # would place an extra burden on editors using British computer keyboards. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I haven't looked into which English-speaking countries use # to mean "number", and I'm not going to comment on that. What I do believe is the "Number signs" section of the MOS should not say anything about the use of this sign in citations. If there is to be a guideline about that, it should be in "Citing sources". Jc3s5h (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
It used to be the case that British keyboards had the pound sign above the 3 where American keyboards had the number sign, which used to be called the pound sign too. In the days when they use Imperial weights, it was used for pounds too. I think the MOS advice was based on it not being available on everyone's keyboard, and it may render as a pound sign in some character sets. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Not only did pound and hash occupy the same key, they occupied the same code point, 0x23. This was standardised in the ISO 646 UK variant, Code page 1013. They became separated in the 1980s with the advent of ISO 8859-1. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
A-ha, interesting. I made this discussion because there was no clarification on the matter, despite searching thru archives. I was completely unaware that the "#" was sometimes absent on keyboards and/or it converts to something else. Overall, I'm all for making things easier for other users. Xanarki (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
We can safely assume that '#' and '£' are two separate symbols and that both are available to everyone, both for entry and display. It's been 30 years since this was a problem. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree the use of "#" to mean "pound" is unknown in Britain. I'd go further than that and claim it's unknown worldwide except in North America. I once attended a telephone conference call with an American host. I was invited to press a 3-digit code followed by the pound sign. My telephone did not have a pound sign so I was baffled. I did know that it was common (in Europe) to confirm the submission of a digital code by following it with a hash sign, so I tried that instead. Miraculously (or so it seemed to me) I was placed in the call. I pointed out to my host that I had been confused and that there was at least one other European joining the call, who might also be confused. Needless to say my fellow European, like me, did not have a pound sign on his telephone, and was unable to join the call. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Applause for @SilkTork:, who's sorted out WT:MOSNUM's archives, making them navigable and searchable right back to the year dot! I'd feared we'd have to live with the old mess forever. NebY (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Fools! You've robbed us of the joy of endlessly relitigating everything over and over and over! EEng19:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
When I started I hadn't realised how many archives there were. More fool me for not looking first. Then I remembered that I could do it en masse by renaming the main talk page, but I had to first move the main talkpage to a temporary name, and then move it back. I'll be honest and say that manoeuvre was a little more nerve wracking than going round Hyde Park corner on a moped! Bad moment when the manoeuvre was complete and I had a redirect loop to an empty main talkpage, but I managed to sort that out. Phew! But I certainly aint doing that again! SilkTork (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I looked at the time stamps on that vast number of early archives; what a job, even without the secret sauce of the manoeuvre. I'd have found it much more nerve-wracking than Constitution Hill - Park Lane on a bicycle, all that needs is position, awareness and confidence! NebY (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, a question. I destubbed an article and used format of dates in references in uniform format 2022-11-13, no other dates were used in the article. A user came and added use dmy dates template (which from the point of view of its national ties is OK). Do I have to change all the dates in the references to the dmy format, or can I keep it per MOS:DATERET? On the outside, there is dmy everywhere thanks to the template, so it's just the code. If the data format was uniform before, wasn't adding the template pointless? FromCzech (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
My experience is that if you have an intentional and consistent date style that you want to use, that differs from having long dates everywhere, then it is necessary to use a {{use mdy dates}} or {{use dmy dates}} template with parameters set to describe your style, in order to head off the many script-using gnomes who don't check for consistency of existing styles before steamrollering everything into long mdy or dmy dates and then typically take great offence when you revert their edits and tell them they are violating DATERET. I think to get all-numeric dates you should use |cs1-dates=y with one of these two templates. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: I added the parameter, but the script-using user keeps behaving exactly as you described. Can you go to Loděnice (Beroun District) and check if I'm really right? The user ignores me and refers to the MOS guideline. Aside from the fact that it feels unfair when I destubbed the page, I prefer consistency with the other articles in the category; but if I'm breaking any rules, I'd like to know. Thank you. FromCzech (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I left a warning on their talk page. I don't think you are currently breaking any rules but you should also be aware of WP:3RR and avoid reverting their edits too many times in a row. (You are far from that limit currently but even longer-term patterns of editing can be seen as edit warring.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
The first mention of a date I can find is in this edit from 7 August 2020 by User: FromCzech. There are two dates, "2020-01-01" in the infobox and the parameter date=2020-04-30 in {{cite web}}. We also see "1-january-2019" but that is an error; some automated tool grabbed that from the website as part of the title, but it isn't really part of the title.
According to MOS:DATE "Acceptable date formats" table the yyyy-mm-dd format is not acceptable for general use, so that format should not have been used in the infobox. Later it states the publication date should be the format used in the article body text, or an abbreviated format from the "Acceptable date format" table. The yyyy-mm-dd format may be used for access and archive dates in citations, but no such dates are present in the article.
So it was appropriate to change from the unacceptable format to the dmy format, since no acceptable format had been established for the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
The yyyy-mm-dd format is used in access-dates and there is no reason to change it by script; the use dmy template will automatically change it externally. I accept the thing with the format in infobox, but it wasn't even changed by the script. So if I understand it correcly, it would be ok to keep the dates in the citations but it should be changed in infobox. FromCzech (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
It would be OK to keep yyyy-mm-dd for access or archive dates, but not for publication dates (all of which may be in citations). Jc3s5h (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I think that is not true. cs1|2 has adopted MOS:DATEFORMAT to specify which date formats are supported in cs1|2 templates. cs1|2 does not restrict editors in their choice of format so long as the format used is consistent with other citations in the article.
Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Dates, months and years (scroll down to the 'Consistency' section) says "Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be: ... the format expected in the citation style being used (but all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided)." Ie, publication dates can be yyyy-mm-dd as long as the article consistently uses them for all reference publication dates. Stepho talk01:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Right, acceptable formats; HELP:CS1 says nothing about which format to use in a cs1|2 template except to say about |date=:
date: Full date of publication edition being referenced, in the same format as other dates in citations in the same article. Must not be wikilinked.
In this case (Loděnice (Beroun District)) the first use of |date= occurred at this edit which added the first reference to the article. It used |date=2020-04-30. That is a perfectly legitimate date format. So long as subsequent references use |date= with the same date format, cs1|2 is happy. There is nothing at Help:CS1 that prohibits the use of year-initial numeric dates in any date-holding parameter so long as all cs1|2 templates in the article follow the same formatting.
Citation Style 1 is a specific style, documented at Help:Citation Style 1, and errors may be corrected to conform to that documentation. This is the same as if an article followed The Chicago Manual of Style; errors could be fixed if citations departed from the Chicago Manual. The only time the article itself would set the rules for how citations are done would be if the article consistently followed an ad hoc style developed just for that article. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
It seems that there is, perhaps, a discrepancy in the script (User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM_dates.js). The script reads and rewrites the {{use xxx dates}} template when it updates the |date= parameter. In doing so, it preserves |cs1-dates= but does not apply that setting to dates in cs1|2 templates. I suspect, but don't know, that it is possible for the script to do the right thing and rewrite the dates in cs1|2 templates in the forms specified by |cs1-dates=.
I wrote the portion of the script that preserves |cs1-dates=. The real purpose of that parameter is to cause the cs1|2 templates to render the dates as directed by the {{use xxx dates}} template regardless of how those dates are written in the cs1|2 template. If I remember correctly, there was a period of time when the script did not modify cs1|2 template dates. But, because editors complained that the cs1|2 dates weren't being updated when the script was run, a change was made to rewrite dates to use the canonical date format specified by the {{use xxx dates}} template. The script should probably be changed so that cs1|2 template dates are rewritten to obey the format specified in |cs1-dates=. I acknowledge that this change would likely only apply to those cs1|2 template under their canonical names. The script won't be able to rewrite dates in templates using redirected names nor will it be able to rewrite dates of cs1|2 templates that exist inside wrapper templates (there are a lot of both types). Still, the preponderance of cs1|2 template use is by the canonical name.
The production script indeed aligns all dates to canonical format (yes, there was an uproar when I decided to soften it), while my test script has been softened and leaves ymd dates alone when they occupy |accessdate= and |archivedate= parameters irrespective of the parameter in place. If I were to rewrite so that date format mirrors the |cs1-dates= parameter, the script will first have to detect the parameter and act accordingly. I will need the help of someone who possesses the relevant skills. Volunteers kindly come forward. Regards, -- Ohc revolution of our times17:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I volunteer. 35 years of professional programming. New to WP scripting but I adapt to new programming languages easy enough. Stepho talk23:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I recently come across with an editor who change date format in references from "yyyy-mm-dd" to "d mmmm yyyy". The body of article itself already use "d mmmm yyyy" format and have Template:Use dmy dates in place.
In my understanding, between manually input "d mmmm yyyy" and using "yyyy-mm-dd" when Template:Use dmy dates used, both will show "d mmmm yyyy" to the reader. So in the eye of reader, they are the same format. Hence, no need to change from "yyyy-mm-dd" to "d mmmm yyyy" on the references.
However his argument to change the date format are:
MOS:DATEUNIFY states that Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format
the date formats weren't consistent with each other or consistent with the body of the article.
there are some citations that don't use either CS1 or CS2.
There are only 3 date formats to realistically consider:
31 December 2022 (dmy)
December 31, 2022 (mdy)
2022-12-31 (ymd, also known as ISO)
This is regardless of whether the individual reference uses CS1 or CS2 templates or not. Each reference in an article should consistently use the same one of the 3 choices. It does not have to be the same as the date format used in the article text (MOS:DATE says "Special rules apply to citations; see Wikipedia:Citing sources § Citation style").
If {{Use dmy dates}} has the |cs1-dates= parameter then the format that |cs1-dates= specifies is the format that will be displayed in references.
If {{Use dmy dates}} does not have the |cs1-dates= parameter then dmy will be displayed in references.
If {{Use dmy dates}} was recently added and it changed the majority of the references then it should have |cs1-dates= added to keep the references in the majority format that they used to have - as per WP:DATERET.
The actual format used in the wiki mark-up for the reference is irrelevant because {{Use dmy dates}} will override it.
If the majority of the reference's wiki mark-up are in the same format that they are displayed in then I would consider it rude to change them to a different format in the mark-up. But as long as they display correctly then this is a minor matter. Stepho talk00:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@Stepho-wrs: The article in question already use {{Use dmy dates}} since August 2020 and it does not have the |cs1-dates= specified. And yes, both "d mmmm yyyy" and "yyyy-mm-dd" version display correctly as "d mmmm yyyy", I also agree that this really minor issue.
I just can't understand why would someone changed "yyyy-mm-dd" to "d mmmm yyyy" when the results is the same. If it was the other way around, it may be intended to reduce article size (even then, the difference may be negligible). Ckfasdf (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, some people really love ymd and spread the goodness everywhere we can. And others really hate it and will go out of their way to remove any trace of the evil. And some are just OCD and want to make everything match up perfectly. As long as it displays correctly then we're all good. Stepho talk03:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
is this an example of what the manual calls "'simple' ranges"? admittedly, i had not considered century–century ranges as "simple" ranges before, though doing so does make sense. would it be helpful to explicitly include such ranges under the second bullet point at mos:daterange, or would that be considered too extra? dying (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Most would agree that our Manual of Style is already too long. The consensus has been that we should only add new instructions if there's widespread disagreement. This is pretty standard in English and is not specific to Wikipedia, so I don't think it would be worth making our MoS any longer. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
oh, SchreiberBike, i agree that the mos could use some slimming, though i probably should not be the one to cast the first stone. i also agree that ordinal suffixes should be used on both sides of the dash, and believe this is standard in english. however, what i found interesting in the accepted answer above was that the en dash was not spaced. this practice is the motivation behind the definition of a "simple" range in the mos, and is also not necessarily a standard practice in english. in addition, treating such ranges of centuries as "simple" ranges does not appear to be a universally observed practice on wikipedia, as seen here and here.should "7th – 5th century BC" be also considered acceptable? if so, then i think it is better to avoid adding anything to the mos. however, if the use of a spaced en dash should be proscribed in such cases, then explicitly adding centuries to the list of types of "simple" ranges may be helpful.anyway, i am sorry that i had not made my point more clear before. also, if the use of an unspaced en dash is indeed standard in english and that had been your point, then i withdraw my suggestion. dying (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Should MOS:CIRCA apply even in less formal usage in running text, such as that found in the final sentence of I Want to Know What Love Is#Music video? I was thinking that the sudden appearance of an abbreviation in the running text might seem jarring. Or is there a better way to recast the sentence? I haven't done anything with it. 1980fast (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Support as the status quo. But this RfC is already a train wreck, and some people supporting "Allow either" seem to be misunderstanding the question. The "as appropriate" bit should be defined - I gather it means matching the system in use in the article. StAnselm (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Support per WP:ERA as the status quo. Additionally, "allow either, as appropriate" seems rather malformed as a possible answer to this RfC. Does it mean that we defer to the original style / the status quo, which I think is uniformly BC/AD, thus practically meaning we use BC/AD for existing articles while being open to BCE/CE for articles about future years (inevitably resulting in people rushing to create an article about a new year as part of some kind of silly style war)? Does it mean that the style may vary from article to article according to the year's events (according to some kind of logic I'm failing to even conceive of)? Does it simply mean that the issue should be litigated on each article's talk page and that we approve of contradictory outcomes (even contradictory outcomes that sometimes contravene the MOS)? Graham (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Support as the status quo and per User:Johnbod above. A similar request for a massive change from BC -> BCE was attempted in 2005 by an editor who was vehemently against BC/AD, and it failed then. There's no reason to believe that between 2005 and 2022, any further argumentative reasoning could be made to change to BCE/CE. The only "arguments" one can make are inevitably POV and the individual's opinion, as a multitude of academic, secular, and worldwide sources use both era notations. Ultimately, the calendar era which bases its epoch 2,021 years ago is inextricably Christian in nature, using euphemistic acronyms that a large portion of our readership won't be familiar with certainly isn't going to change that. Also, BC and AD each have two characters, while CE has two and BCE has three – so BC/AD are stylistically/aesthetically superior IMO. BCE and CE could also be confused for one another as they share most of their letters, there would be no such confusion with BC and AD.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 04:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Support. For titles (not text) we should standardize, as not doing so makes us look too amateurish. (For article text, let the writer do what she wants, it's different.) So what to standardize on? I prefer BC/AD for a number of reasons which I could detail at length if asked. Herostratus (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Support solely on the basis that this represents the status quo per WP:ERA and because consistency is beneficial. I see no reason to carve out a specific exception to the current consensus in this instance. I'd note that I believe that this matches the perspective expressed by several in the "Allow either" option. Kahastoktalk08:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Support Agree with Kahastok above, "...on the basis that this represents the status quo per WP:ERA and because consistency is beneficial" is right. For this topic, AD/BC seems appropriate and, more importantly, the status quo. That said, at some point maybe we should move everything away from AD/BC? But while it remains common use I think we're stuck with it here. Hobit (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Support For better or for worse, many terms in English are anchored in religious or culturally specific contexts. Using more obscure terminology will not help readers who are unfamiliar with BCE/CE, neither will it solve any meaningful problem. BC/AD remains the best, most used system throughout the world. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Support. When looking at WP:CRITERIA, AD/BC is more recognizable than CE/BCE, it is probably more natural for the majority of anglophone speakers. The terms are equally precise and there's no meaningful difference in concision (we'd be saving one character in choosing BC vs BCE, but this isn't enough to motivate a general rule). Given that years already seem to mostly follow AD/BC rather than CE/BCE, and article titles should be consistent, it makes sense that we would adopt a guideline that makes them all consistent under the more recognizable dating system that's in wider use. Unlike the difference between lime (color) and orange (colour), there arent WP:ENGVAR issues at play that would justify leaving them inconsistent. The proposal is only with discussion to article titles and many of the arguments in the "use either" camp seem to be confused about this; this isn't going to actually touch upon the content of archaelogy articles as this is specific to the article titles of our articles on years. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)04:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
It's a serious argument, and the only one that's completely justifiable mathematically. I think I should say that for a lot of us the idea that a "common era" (that... begins with the birth of Christ) is more NPOV seems comedic. FOARP (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Support in articles about the years. This is the present form and I see no problem with it. Some consistency is needed in these articles and as this is both a) already dominant and b) commonly used outside Wikipedia, I think this is the best option. Duonaut(talk | contribs)23:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Second choice behind BCE/CE, but ahead of "allow either". For the titles of articles about years/decades/centuries/millennia, we should be consistent and pick one scheme or the other. I'd prefer the more-academic BCE/CE, but the traditional BC/AD is better than a mix of both. Levivich (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Support BC / AD is most easily recognisable for the average reader and is still most commonly used by the average person in every day situations. I see no reason to deviate from using BC / AD at this time. Masterhatch (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Support per the principle of WP:ERA that an article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content. Srnec (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. I've always been mystified by the idea that BCE/CE are somehow free of taint. Personally I've long advocated counting years from the Big Bang forward. EEng22:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
But are you sure that AUC is accurately determined and not based upon the religious precepts of the Roman Priesthood? I detect a religio-cultural bias! :) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Speaking of false dilemmas, an advantage of BCE/CE is that it violates NPOV less than BC/AD. The fact that both systems have flaws is not a reason to reject improvements. That being said, many people do not understand BCE/CE and as our objective is to serve the reader, in many contexts BC/AD is better. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 13:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
On the one hand we have an epoch based on a religious event and clearly labelled as such (even if the general population only vaguely recognises that). On the other hand we have an epoch based on a religious event but sneakily hide that fact with clever rebranding. Not sure which has the moral high ground there. Kind of like the guys that like to remind us that Christmas is celebrated on the date of a repurposed pagan festival, therefore it is a pagan festival. Subjective. Stepho talk22:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Choosing an epoch is quite different from choosing the name of the epic. And BTW, current scholarly opinion is that Jeshu ben Joseph, if he existed, was born in 4 BCE, not at the beginning of the common epoch. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, the date and the name are (slightly) separate issues. Do you really think people who don't like "Anno Domini" would be happier with something like "The year of the Christ" or "The year of Jesus"? But is hiding the basis of the date morally better?
If you scroll down a bit to my first comment in this discussion you will see that I already said "slightly wrong date of the birth of Christ". It's well accepted by both Christian and non-Christian scholars that the calculation of his birthdate by Dionysius Exiguus wasn't quite accurate. It doesn't change anything in this discussion. Stepho talk00:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Crumpled Fire: There's no point in pursuing this (this debate should be snow closed), but when you bring this up, I feel the need (my problem - I should ignore) to respond. Those are based on the names of supposed gods. If BC were instead BJ (before Jesus), that too would be the name of a supposed god. Instead the word used is Christ, meaning "the Messiah", which is a theological position not held by all. Similarly AD, anno Domini, means "in the year of the Lord" or "in the year of our Lord", again a theological statement. Use of these words forces a theological conclusion on a world which does not share those beliefs. To start a calendar system based on the birth of a more-or-less historical person is one thing, but to require non-believers to make religious statements is offensive. I know that BCE/CE also has problems, but it is a little better. I hope you and others can understand how BC/AD is different from Thursday. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I would point out that a very large percentage (of both the (nominally) Christian countries, and especially non-Christian countries) assume that "Christ" is part of the name of Jesus. They simply aren't aware, let alone understand, the theological implications of using the term. Assuming that most people are even aware that BC/AD could be interpreted as a theological statement about a messiah or a lord, is unfounded; it's just the conventional way of indicating an era. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Martin's reply. "Jesus Christ" or "Christ" are now considered common names for the individual of Jesus, not necessarily a title. This is the same as Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as Gautama Buddha or simply "Buddha", which is also a Buddhist religious title. But secular western sources have no issue referring to him as "Buddha", irrespective of beliefs. Same with "the Prophet Muhammad", many western sources use this title despite it being an Islamic belief that he was a Prophet. Also, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, I'd argue that terms like "Wednesday" make religious claims just as much as BC/AD do: using "Wednesday" to refer to the 3rd day of the week is tantamount to making the religious claim that it's "Woden's Day" every seven days. But... that's fine, because the Western/Christian calendar is a multireligious end-product of several millennia of an ever-changing western civilization, and is therefore secular as a whole regardless of the individual religious items therein. To single out the Christian element for elimination, while keeping the pagan elements (despite Quaker attempts to secularize them, for example), is itself far more biased and POV than keeping all the naturally-evolved references equally.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 15:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
That is precisely the followup I was going to make, right down to Woden and the Quakers and "the" Buddha, and I'm kind of pissed that Crumpled Fire beat me to it. EEng17:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Levivich, to be clear, this means you are supporting renaming hundreds, possibly thousands, of articles from their current consistent titling as BC/AD. How do you reconcile this with WP:ERA? Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
If WP:ERA were to conflict with the outcome of this discussion, then WP:ERA should be updated to match the outcome of this discussion. If the BC/AD option should gain consensus, WP:ERA should be updated to note that articles about years/decades/centuries/millennia should use BC/AD in their titles and bodies. (Or BCE/CE if that one should gain consensus.) Levivich (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Nah, WP:ERA is a section of this page, so this RFC, on the talk page, advertised at CENT, is the proposal. Seeing the current state of consensus in this discussion, I'm not sure why you're bothering to wikilawyer about procedure. Levivich (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
My mission is to battle wrongheadedness wherever it is found. And I doubt you're right about that, & as you say, we'll never know. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Levivich, be aware that although WP is technically an academic work, non-scholars make up a large number of our readers. Many non-scholars (ie, the average person on the street) might not know what CE/BCE mean. Stepho talk23:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
True, although I suspect that a lot more non-scholars would recognise BC/AD than BCE/CE, even if "BC" just means "really ancient stuff" (pyramids, cavemen, etc) to them. Stepho talk01:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Allow either, as appropriate
Support - While I prefer using BCE/CE in articles about subjects for which that style is becoming common usage in recent reliable sources, I think it would be a big mistake to try to force either style as the sole allowed usage in Wikipedia, at least for any time in the foreseeable future. Leave the current WP:ERA as is. - Donald Albury14:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
This is just about the titles of articles on years/decades etc, where I think consistency is justified. The vast majority are just short lists, or container categories. It would be confusing to mix styles. There is no "as appropriate" - why would one year need to be BC, and the next BCE? Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
If you force the article titles to one style of the other, then it is logical to force the articles to match their titles. Far better to have a disjunct between titles than between titles and their articles. Stick with WP:ERA. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Support to match the body of the article, both in accordance with MOS:ERA. I don't see why titles should be consistent across Wikipedia while articles (quite reasonably) aren't, and certainly don't see why we'd want to have titles that are inconsistent with the articles. (Indeed, that would likely provoke more disruption as people tried to change the body of the article to match the title.) I've no objection to cross-format redirects if anyone's worried about searches. However, the RFC is poorly phrased when it says "article titles for years, decades, centuries, millennia". For titles of articles about years (and decades, centuries, millennia), no change to current MOS or current titles.NebY (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Support. I don't see a reason for changing the long-standing consensus on WP:ERA, which explicitly allows either in the body and should obviously allow either in the titles to match the body. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Please note that this discussion only affects the article titles of the years, decades, centuries, and millennia, not the bodies of other articles that are not years, decades, centuries, or millennia. Aristotle and Confucius use different styling. I am not proposing that they use the same style. Interstellarity (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Support Although I am used to BC/AD, I am well aware that using that system as standard is in fact a system bias towards Christianity. There are (and were) many more calenders in use. If the encyclopedia is neutral, it should also be neutral in the calender it uses and not pick just one. The Bannertalk16:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I think a lot of people responding in this section are misunderstanding OP's RFC. This is not about changing which eras can/should be used across Wikipedia, it's specifically about article titles for years/centuries/millennia/decades. I think this RFC should be halted until that can be made clear. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 04:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
@Crumpled Fire: The question seems to set up a trichotomy where two of the options would explicitly approve of BCE in such titles (either uniformly or as an option), and the third would put us in the position of preferring AD/BC a priori, which might be hard to defend. I don't know whether that was intentional or not. But we don't have to take any of those options. We can (and should) just leave matters alone, which I assume means that the MOS will continue to say nothing explicitly about titles for articles about years or ranges of years, and that AD/BC will remain the de facto but not de jure standard for them. --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
@Crumpled Fire:: Guidelines are not laws, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) is the appropriate place for guidance about dates in article titles. The current guidance for Wikipedia article titles is 'For these years AD, the format is "AD <year number>", for example AD 100. For years BCE, the format is "<year number> BC", for example 44 BC.' [Emphasis added, internal links removed.] Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The proposer provided only two options, BC/AD and BCE/CE, in an attempt to switch to BCE/CE only.[61]. That's clearly not going to gain consensus and yes, pretty much all of us seem to be saying follow existing MOS, the only difference being that some of us know more parts of the MOS. NebY (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Support. SchreiberBike said what I was thinking. And yes, that means that for the specific articles under discussion that's going to default to BC/AD, unless there's a convincing reason to change them (MOS:ERA). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Support - Both forms are fine. AD/BC is more common for the average person on the street. CE/BCE is more common for scholarly works. Both are based on exact the same date (ie the slightly wrong date of the birth of Christ), hence neither of them is less Christian or more Christian. If you want a totally secular date then CE/BCE isn't it - and fat chance changing the Western calendar to a new base date. Just let the thing lie and let's move on to something more constructive. Stepho talk03:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose any change to MOS on this point. I explicitly do not want this to be taken as support to add language that either style is OK for the titles of articles about years or intervals of years. I believe (haven't checked) that we currently say nothing specifically about the titles of such articles, as opposed to usage in articles in general. We should continue to say nothing about that. --Trovatore (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Strongly oppose allowing either/or for article titles of centuries/millennia/years/etc. OP's RFC is referring to article titles about years only, not contents of articles or titles about other subjects, as I understand it. So I find it ridiculous that anyone is supporting the idea that we should have a mess of articles that could end up with titles like 10 BC, 9 BCE, 8 BC, 7 BCE, 2nd century BCE, 1st century BC, etc. The era notation style should absolutely remain consistent for all such article titles if we want to maintain any semblance of order and cohesiveness here.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 04:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Support: I think WP:ERA has made the correct decision to allow editors of different articles to decide which style seems best for their context. This also allows usage to evolve with the language. Language usage doesn't change that much, but it does change. For example, the Wikipedia article on "Preferred gender pronoun" on 2022-10-30 reported that the percent of Americans who knew someone who preferred pronouns such as "they" increased from 18% in 2018 to 26% in 2021. That's a different issue, but language use is evolving, and I think it's reasonable to allow it to evolve, at least on this point. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Support BC and Ad is normally the most appropriate for article titles and common topics, but BCE and CE should be allowed for topic areas like archaeology where this kind of terminology is common. (Hey even my spell checker thinks that BCE is wrong) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I think that might be a little overstating the case. The link you give notes, "Orange (colour) and Lime (color) peaceably coexist", and era styles share a number of commonalities with varieties of English. The main justification for an extra attention to consistency in this case, I think, is that year/decade/century/millennium articles form a sort of natural series, that readers may naturally expect to be treated in a common manner. That would make it a bit odd (but not, I think, completely horrible) to mix BC and BCE among them. Once you get past the natural "series", I don't think there's any strong case for consistency. If long-ago years were to be used as parenthetical disambiguators; I don't know, maybe Oolonofid Empire (5th millennium BC) and Oolonofid Empire (3rd millennium BCE), I don't think there would be any strong reason not to mix and match. --Trovatore (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Support per Neby. The disparity between title/body otherwise is particularly unpleasant and there's very good reason for articles to use different methods per ERA. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
And what would those be? If you are one of those who think (very wrongly, imo) that only subjects with some sort of Christian connection should use BC/AD, are there some years, decades or centuries that are more Christian than others? Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Support outside of year/century/etc. articles. Consistency is not as essential here so I see no reason to override the status quo. I think any article outside of those areas should be able to use either style, although as with DMY/MDY dates it should be consistent. irrelevant to discussion Duonaut(talk | contribs)23:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Support – which seems to be the option that is current, as well the one that would prevent having both types of era designations in an article, which seems too stylistically inconsistent. Consistency across similar articles could be achieved in other ways, such as organizing local, or project-wide, consensus. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I've been rude about this proposal, but it is certainly an attempt to organize a "project-wide consensus". So we've tried that. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking WikiProject-wide, rather than the entirety of enwiki, where, say, oversight of articles that tend to have eral designations in their titles would belong to a particular, smaller-than-encyclopedia-wide, project. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Leave as is - Literally I cannot think of a context where BCE/CE makes more sense for years per WP:CONSISTENT. As with any MOS there may be exceptions. The NPOV argument is nonsense given that BCE/CE are ultimately eras linked to the birth of Christ. FOARP (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I suggest you re-read the Common Era article, as it appears you haven't fully understood the motivations for the notation. (And btw, the epoch of CE was 2022 years, eleven months and 17 days ago as I write, about four years after the most likely date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Wow, this common era just coincidentally starts at the exact time and date that the one that BC/AD notification starts at. It's obviously completely different because reasons. It's also obviously not linked to the birth of Christ, and how dare I suggest it is. It's amazing... FOARP (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Let the choice made by the article creator stand per MOS:ERA. This RFC is completely pointless because there is zero possibility of consensus. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Er, no - there is a resounding consensus to reject the proposal, if for slightly different reasons. It has been running for over 3 weeks, & should be put out of its misery. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Why the hell are we having an RfC out of nowhere without so much as a smidgen of prior discussion to frame the question, or indeed see if there's even an issue to be resolved? EEng17:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Could anyone supporting "Allow either" provide an example of any article where it would be "appropriate" to use BCE in the article title? StAnselm (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Proposer wishes to see articles retitled using BCE/CE, whatever's in the body [62] They are alone in seeking this. Can we snow-close this before it becomes any more disruptive? NebY (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, it is a total waste of time (now 19:1 against him), as anybody could have told him in advance. He is one of a number of people who spend much of their time launching similar time-consuming lost causes. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that the RFC is missing a "no change" option. I put my !vote in "either is acceptable" as that was the closest to the status quo, but that wording could be taken as support for adding an explicit claim to the MOS that either era style is acceptable for titles of articles about years or intervals of years, and I do not think such an explicit provision should be added.
If I can expand a bit on this point: Suppose that there is some year or interval of years that currently does not have an article, but which plausibly could. (I don't know whether there is or not; it sounds unlikely but not impossible.) If someone created an article and used CE/BCE era style, would editors let that stand? I don't care a lot about inter-article consistency, but that would be a little strange, given that all the others use AD/BC. It might be reasonable to argue for moving the article on consistency grounds. I don't think we should pre-empt that argument in the MOS.
That's not the same as arguing that AD/BC "should" be our standard for such articles. It just happens to be the de-facto standard. The MOS can handle this best by remaining silent on the question. --Trovatore (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's just one of the ways this was incompetently framed (launched in the wrong place etc), typical of this type of editor. I now make it 19:1 against the proposal; time to close. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm confused by the wording of the RfC, but the titles should be consistent. In other words articles in a sequence of similarly named articles should either all use AD/BC or all use CE/BCE. I don't have a view on which that should be (happy to accept the consensus choice of fellow editors). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
@Dondervogel 2: This is exactly my view, which is why my only !vote was to oppose "allow either". I don't care which it is, as long as it's one or the other, for the titles of articles about years (or decades/centuries/millennia). I also don't care much if it varies in parenthetical disambiguators or in article text; it's just the titles of articles about years where we need to pick one or the other to avoid confusion. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I didn't know about Canada, they resist their southern neighbour in some things (railways, size of the gallon, metrication), but not in others. That's why I said "most of the rest of the world". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
We might believe that, but I assure you that Canadians don't, and are not shy about defending their interests and perspectives. Both we and they value a close and friendly relationship, and there are many common interests, but Canada is very much a sovereign nation. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, gee, mister, thanks for setting me straight! Because I, like, actually thought that Canada is owned by the US. EEng17:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot of differences between Canada and the US, but I doubt that many of them are due to resisting the US. I believe that what we are seeing are either differences in circumstances and traditions, situations where pragmatic issues make change difficult or situations where Canada has adopted an international convention that the US is refusing to adopt. A better question might be why neither Canada nor the US use Y-M-D. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Part of the difference in culture is that there was a time when most English-speaking Canadians in what is now Ontario had been United Empire Loyalists (i.e., Tories) who had left the US (often forfeiting their property) at the end of the American Revolution. Donald Albury15:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I fixed a singer's birthdate as December 29, 1959 and they reverted it to 29 December 1959 the user labeled good faith but it was December 29, 1959 before it was changed. 47.205.254.217 (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I assume, from your edit history, that you are referring to the article Marco Antonio Solís. Right at the toip of that there is the line {{Use dmy dates|date=May 2021}} which indicates that all dates within the article should be in the day, month, year format. This has been established since at least May of last year when FMSky cleaned up the article. If you believe that this is incorrect, go to the articles talk page and explain why, then listen to responses and try to obtain consensus. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Why would you go back and change it again when you were right in the middle of discussing it here? That seems a little unhelpful. We usually try to discuss things ... no-one will die if your preferred version is not enforced immediately, even if you are right. We are not in a hurry. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Ok, Marco Antonio Solís is a Mexican singer. In Mexico the official date format is DMY, which is common for many countries (including England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Australia, new Zealand, South Africa and many others) - see Date format by country. As mentioned above, the article is also marked by {{use dmy dates}}. For you to insist that everybody use your American format instead of their own national format shows either ignorance (forgivable) or rudeness. Put simply, you are trying to force American customs onto other people. Stepho talk11:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
You're talking about the common date format in Spanish (which should be used in Spanish Wikipedia). This has nothing to do with an English-language article about a non-English-speaking country. Doremo (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Articles for which MDY or DMY formats have been established should follow those formats (a topic simply being connected with Mexico does not automatically justify DMY format in English). In the case at hand, the article used MDY format from June 22, 2006 to May 13, 2021, when it was changed without discussion, and this controversial change was not mentioned in the edit summary ("ce"). Until that point, the MDY format had been well established. So the change to DMY was unjustified. Doremo (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
My point was that the national connection justifies the use of dmy dates, just as national connections justify the use of different ENGVARs. However, I agree that the format should not be changed without discussion and consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@Doremo: "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation" doesn't say that articles on topics with strong ties to a particular non-English-speaking country shouldn't generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. MOS:DATERET says nothing about English-speaking countries; "unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic" doesn't say that those national ties only apply to English-speaking nations. I don't think that MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATERET are as clear as you imply. But we agree that if a change is challenged, it should be reverted and discussed. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I fully agree one should consider national date format for non-English speaking countries. This seems especially important in countries where English is the second language. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
We should follow what the guidelines do say, not what they don't say. Otherwise we would use YMD format for all China-related articles. Doremo (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Remember, even for en.wiki, that not all English-speaking countries use the MDY format. DMY is extremely common for UK, Australian, and New Zealand topics. That's why the DATETIES/DATERET are written as they are, and that we allow editors to be reasonably flexible with dates instead of specifying one or the other. Masem (t) 16:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Workaround for "generic" values
I was editing Umibōzu and I found this statement: "They are often a few meters to a few tens of meters in length." I would add a conversion in milesyards or feet but I don't know whether is necessary or not. Perhaps milesyards would be more correct in that case, getting rid of kmsmetres/meters, since there's no value? Also: is it correct the U.S. spelling "meters" in articles dealing with Japanese mythology? Thanks in advance.-- Carnby (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
US spelling is fine if used consistently in the article.
By "conversion in miles" do you mean "conversion in yards"? I don't see why yards (or miles) would be more correct. What unit does the source use?
(edit conflict) Personally, for a vague estimate like this I would avoid any attempt at using conversion tools and phrase it as "They are often a few metres (yards) to a few tens of metres (yards) in length.". After all a metre is 3" longer that a yard, so they differ by around 8%, well within "a few ... to a few tens". You certainly don't need either miles of kilometres. For a Japanese article I would incline to the international spelling as "metres", but if there are good reasons within the article to use the US spelling then be guided by that. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor is repeatedly removing Template:Bit and byte prefixes from Binary prefix (the only article the template is used on on the project). It appears they're doing this because they don't like the way a recent RFC went, so they're effectively subst'ing the template portion they prefer and beginning the argument anew. Instead of engaging in discussion, they're engaging in protracted revert warring to force it their way. Help. —Locke Cole • t • c00:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Neat, so make changes to the template. As that template is only used in that article, this is nothing but a bald-face attempt to do an end-run around consensus at the templates. Which is also why it's at AN/I now. —Locke Cole • t • c00:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
That template is in use at MOS:COMPUNITS and changes to it can leave it contradicting the text of COMPUNITS, for example for several days this month [63] it stated that the units COMPUNITS stipulates are deprecated, and yesterday [64] a prefix discussed in COMPUNITS was removed. NebY (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
This never-ending dispute over notation nobody actually uses reminds me of nothing more than the floating flayed head from Iain M. Banks' _Feersum Endjinn_ screaming unintelligibly "kibi mebi gibi tebi". —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Usage share of operating systems suggests that Microsoft Windows makes up > 75% of the desktop/laptop share. For mobile devices, Android reports units using GB/TB in the binary sense. In sales/marketing use, GiB, TiB and co. may as well not even exist, and use of those units in wider media (news, etc) is almost non-existent. I understand the use and point of these units, but they simply are not used in any meaningful way by the wider public world outside of some academia. —Locke Cole • t • c20:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: Thanks for the complement, but I fear it is undeserved. The last contact I had with academia was back in 1979. For the last 20 years of my working life I was running an HPC facility for a commercial organisation and certainly the binary units were used there to ensure clarity and precision. Still as I'm retired now I probably accept (with bad grace) that I'm a "nobody". (BTW, why is the market share of MS relevant given my toungue in cheek comment about graduating from MS? Just curious.) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
@Martin of Sheffield:BTW, why is the market share of MS relevant given my toungue in cheek comment about graduating from MS? Just curious. Just noting that while it's indeed true that other desktop OS's may be moving towards these units, that the one in widest use by our readers and the public at-large still clings to the commonly used binary prefixes. —Locke Cole • t • c05:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree it makes sense to seek consensus for the table, but for more than a year, discussion on this template and two related ones has taken place at Quantities of bits. I would support a proposal to move that discussion to a more central location (and why not here?), but I see no benefit in holding two separate discussions. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I believe you seek a stable version of the table for MOSNUM. I just don't understand how you plan to achieve that without selecting one. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I wrote "We take", not "I take". If editors here agree we want a stable and compatible table, one that doesn't confuse editors coming to MOSNUM for guidance by contradicting the agreed text of MOSNUM, then we take the one that editors here agree to take. NebY (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
You're not making any sense. You wrote above that you were "not suggesting a new discussion about the content of the table". So how do "we take" a stable and compatible table without first discussing it? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, we discuss the selection, if and only if we decide we want a stable and compatible table here rather than a varying and sometimes contradictory transcluded template. Now, do you appreciate that presenting readers with a table that contradicts the text is a problem? NebY (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that has always been clear. As with all problems, it is best resolved by constructive discussion, which I support. Always have done. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
As that table has apparently been removed from the only article-space invocation it had (at Binary prefix, see my plea for help above), and since nobody seems to mind that, sure. Why not. At least then any attempts to undermine the MOS would have to be done here, rather than off at a template that might go unnoticed. —Locke Cole • t • c19:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Why is this table and the last column still an obsession by certain writers here. The only reason it is labeled as it is, is because it provides the only hope for refusenics of unambigous storage units to hang on to a sliver of credibility, when every standards bureau that actually has a voice in the subject matter has deprecated the binary interpretation and stood firm on the new standards, and when new software written these days uses these prefixes accordingly and without which the software may not be distributed in certain environments. And JEDEC in fact agrees with them and refers to their definitions in clear language by pronouncing their ambiguity and deprecation. They state their intent unambiguously in listing them because of ongoing usage. They do not define them in any binding manner. Why is this simply ignored here and why is this column even there? We are listing examples of outdated usage solely because an industry interest group still explains the old usage. Why is it not sufficient to display the standard definitions and discuss deviations in each article in prose? In every other article of units and natural constants or metrics and such the standards orgs are followed rigorously. Why hot here? It's obvious that there still are WP editors who let their personal tastes cloud their mind and deny readers a modern, accurate, unambiguous presentation of these subject matters. Childish belittling the sounds or pronunciations of the units is much like teenager bullying. When the newest SI prefixes got defined this fall, WP editors were eager and quick to add them to every table there is, without regard to actual usage, and without criticism in stupid opinions about their sound or pronunciation. None of these sound any more or less stupid or amusing than giga or pico or any other one. Get rid of the column, or fill it out with a header Deprecated. The MOSNUM needs to be changed and modernized. Too long has it represented a presumed consensus that was only slimly obtained by opinionated prejudice, bullying to drive intelligent contributors away, and proliferation of sock puppets of refusenics. kbrose (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated". Some standards bodies (or defacto standards bodies because the majority are not law) have indeed declared MB, etc, as deprecated. Yet the body keeps twitching and shows no sign of rigor mortis. I look at manufacturer datasheets for eMMC flash chips and for embedded CPU's - practically none of them use MiB, etc, but steadfastly cling to MB in spite of your claim above for JEDEC. WP follows the real world as it is now, not what some bodies declare as their blueprint for the future. Realistically, MB is still in heavy use currently and therefore cannot be deleted or listed as "deprecated".
Also, do you mean the northern hemisphere "fall" or the southern hemisphere? Those of us in the south get real annoyed when we have to waste time figuring out where you live before we can figure out which time of year you mean. Stepho talk06:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Make templates for units of information
This manual recommends using the confusing prefixes for bytes with the meaning specified for the article. I think that's not very good because copying them to another article can result in errors if the copier doesn't replace them (e.g., if they don't know about that). I think there should be templates that automatically place the correct name for units. Orisphera2 (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I concur, and suggest that such templates produce tooltips with exact decimal value, e.g., {{unit|32|Ki|byte}} should produce either "32 kbytes" or "32 Kibytes", depending on the pages default interpretation of SI decimal prefixes. Any such templates should support at least bit, byte and word --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd be careful about word, its size depends upon context. Historically it was the natural transfer size to/from memory, or the size of the registers, or both. However some major families of computers retain the word size from the first member of the family for compatibility reasons. See Word_(computer architecture)#Size families. For example, the 64-bit Alpha processor uses byte, word (16 bits), longword (32 bits), quadword (64 bits) and octaword (128 bits). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The issue is that the vendors of early computers gave their capacities in words. E.g., IBM described memory sizes for the 7030 (Stretch) in terms of 64-bit words, even though it was addressable to the bit. Also, some early computers were decimal, typically with 10 digit word, although some popular machines were addressable to the character or to the digit. I'm not sure how the capacities of the occasional Ternary computers were described. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Let's not forget architectures like the PDP-10 for which the word size was not an integer multiple of an 8-bit byte. On that architecture, "byte" was instead used for subdivisions of a 36-bit word into 6-, 7-, or 9-bit units. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Well unless you're going to refer to "octets", I think that the 8-bit byte is sufficiently standard now throughout the industry so that other bytes can be relegated to a footnote. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
In modern usage, yes. But in order to understand old sources, it is necessary to understand that they may not follow that usage. It would be confusing and wrong to force the descriptions of memory capacity on PDP-10 models to use units of bytes, for instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I think not all sizes and byte alignments were available in one-word global byte pointers, but thankfully I've forgotten all the details. And maybe that was only the DECsystem-20. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi. The instructions about how to provide the explanation of units in quotations are currently inconsistent:
WP:MOSNUM: "Quotations, titles of books and articles, and similar "imported" text should be faithfully reproduced, even if they use formats or units inconsistent with these guidelines or with other formats in the same article. If necessary, clarify via [bracketed interpolation], article text, or footnotes."
WP:MOS: "In a direct quotation, always retain the source's units. Any conversion should follow in square brackets (or, an obscure use of units can be explained in a footnote)."
This page therefore does mention article text whereas WP:MOS does not. I suggest that article text is also removed here as it is self-referential and self-references should be avoided as per WP:SELFREF. --TadejMmy talk15:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Explaining a unit of measurement in article text after a quotation is sometimes appropriate, probably the more so the more obscure the unit is ("a whatever may have been about 3 kilometres", "the whatsit is otherwise unknown") and it's a matter of editorial judgment whether it's more useful to the reader to describe it at once in the text or send the reader to a footnote. That's normal and not WP:SELFREF. WP:MOSNUM exists to be more comprehensive and detailed than WP:MOS. NebY (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the inconsistency. Both say "reproduce obscure units in direct quotes. Explain them if necessary." What's the problem? --Jayron3216:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
NebY, this is a possible explanation but is not necessarily clear to the users. It is more prudent to align the content to read the same on both pages. The subpages may be provide further information but this usually refers to a comprehensive explanation not such a minute detail that looks like an inconsistency. --TadejMmy talk13:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
You're free to suggest at WT:MOS that WP:MOS be expanded, but if you do then do indicate at which article (or article talk page) this has recently been an issue. NebY (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Keiji Nishikawa § Date format. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)
Regards, -- Ohc revolution of our times 17:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
#shitwikipedianssay Levivich (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
![[20]](https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8240/8625666386_cfb5cb2e85.jpg){kind=link}
