Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers: Difference between revisions

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

General 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, vote, 6, 7, 8, 9 (AD/CE), 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14a, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 49a, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 Binary prefixes B0, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, B14, B15, B16, B17 Years and dates D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14 See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Dates Wikipedia talk:Date debate Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (calendar dates) Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards Wikipedia:Measurements Debate Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date autoformatting Complete rewrite of Units of Measurements (June 2008) Dec. 2008 RfC on Date linking/autoformatting (three proposals) Dec. 2008 RfC on Date linking/autoformatting (detailed)

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I have discovered an anomaly with using the 'convert' template. Look at this:

4,700 square miles (12,000 km²)

4,699 square miles (12,170 km²)

When converted into square kilometres, 4699 sq miles comes out 170 km² more than 4700 sq miles. Lose one square mile, gain 65.6 square miles!

I think the problem may occur because of rounding when a number ends in two zeros.

Therefore it is risky to rely blindly on the conversion template. It may give anomalous results.

Please let me know if this issue should be raised elsewhere. Michael Glass (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{convert|4700|mi2|sigfig=4}} gives 4,700 square miles (12,170 km²). You just have to use the significant figures setting. For many articles that rounding is appropriate; if you write 4,700 nobody is going to expect it to be exactly that. If you write 4,699 they will expect it to be exactly that. SimonTrew (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my humble view, this is another reason not to use a conversion template, but to allow fellow editors, including newbies, maximum control over all aspects of the construction. I'm all for keeping it simple, and if that means using a calculator, so be it. Tony (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If a newbie just throws the numbers in, a more experienced editor can use {{convert}} later. The thing about using the template, if e.g. something changes in MOS then EVERY article that uses it will get that change. SimonTrew (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do agree to the extent that it can be fiddly to get right and there are some things it simply can't do. But on the whole, if you can do it with the template, you should. SimonTrew (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the trouble is that as the rounding cuts in automatically unless it is overriden. The default position can be a trap for the unwary. An over-precise conversion can be overridden; the opposite may not be noticed by the uninformed.Michael Glass (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template reads the precision of the input number and matches the precision of the output accordingly. This is in accord with the MoS and normal mathematical practice. There is no anomaly. An over-precise conversion can be overridden, sure, but are the uninformed any more likely to fix an over-precise than an under-precise one? In the majority of cases the template will not give the wrong precision. 4,700 sq mi ≈ 12,000 km² is correct as is 4,699 sq mi ≈ 12,170 km². It is the conversion templates without this type of default rounding which are more prone to produce output with incorrect precision. To those unwary I can only say "Get wary." JIMp _talk·cont 15:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a circular argument that it conforms with MoS since this is a discussion on a subpage of the MoS.

I do agree however that yeah if you put in 4,700 it is unlikely it is going to be exactly 4,700 (of whatever) and so misleading to a ridiculously over-precise value. If you pur in 4,699 presumably you mean that (and not 4,698 or 4.701) and should be converted more accurately. It comes down to common sense. My little book here gives logs and other things such as trig functions to 8 sig figs. Most floating point maths used in computers is at double-precision and has about 12 sig figs (decimal) in the mantissa. If it is good enough for rocket science and subatomic modelling (and it is cos I have programmed it) then I think it ridiculous to be more precise than that. There are all kinds of more precise representations but in real science and engineering that is plenty: in fact single precision (5 or 6 sig figs decimal) is usually good enough, but with modern processors using a double is as fast, if not faster, than a single. And the same applies to humans as computers. Of course propagation errors may occasionally require higher representations in intermediate results, but on Wikipedia that hardly applies, unless the underlying templates are so off that they preduce an obviously bizarre result such as 1 cm = 1.00001 cm or whatever.

I see no problem here. These templates are a bit fiddly and I am sure if we were starting from scratch we would change a lot of things, but we aren't and we can't. It is one of those things an editor just has to do. The {{cite}} templates are also trick but everyone expects those to be used. SimonTrew (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we put the template in question up against a statistically representative sample of typical editors with calculators, I'd put my money behind the template to give the most appropriate levels of precision for the typical measurements you find on Wikipedia. JIMp _talk·cont 08:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour contradicts the principle of least surprise, but as a mathematician I think this is one of the situations where that is actually justified. Besides, I don't see how we can avoid it. Consider:

Notice that in the last column we always write 4,700, whether we mean 2, 3 or 4 significant digits. Similarly, in the penultimate column it's not clear whether 470 has 2 or 3 significant digits. The template needs to guess. We can't make it guess correctly in all situations, but if it makes sure to under-, rather than overestimate the number of significant digits in doubtful cases, then it's more likely to be wrong right than if it does the opposite. And even if the template gets the intended number of significant digits wrong, then except in situations where a human reader can infer it from the context it is usually correct and encyclopedic to round the numbers.

But there is an unrelated anomaly in the top right cell of the table. I am taking this to Template talk:Convert, because it's clearly a bug that needs fixing. Hans Adler 09:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¶ I don't see the anomaly at first glance, Hans. If you're being so precise as to specify 4,700.0 square miles, then you are giving 5 significant digits, which are converted to 5 significant metric digits. The range is between 4,699.95 sq. miles and 4,700.05 sq. miles; otherwise the figure would be either no more than 4,699.9 square miles or no less than 4,700.1 square miles —— Shakescene (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this whole conversion business at all? As stated above, the conversion is not 100% reliable and it's not "official info" anyway. Maybe we should just use English units in American/British articles and metric units everywhere else. Offliner (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this is the English-LANGUAGE Wikipedia, not tied to any one country.

In the UK and Ireland metric is commonly mixed with Imperial units in everyday life; in the UK some things such as road distances and heights, and pints of beer served on draight, MUST be measured in Imperial; in Canada metric is most commonly used, with occasional use of US Customary simply because of the close ties with the US; in Australia and New Zealand exclusively metric and so on.

Last night I was talking to someone from mexico and said that Cambridge was about 80 km from London, whereas I would never say that to an English person (I would say about 50 miles). Yes, the conversions need to exist. Again, if using {{convert}} and the MoS then says "don't use conversions except in this or that circumstance" we can probably change the templates and 90% of articles will immediately conform (the remainder being for things like historical use of units, or quoted sources, etc). So, even if the conversion is not particularly useful in itself, simply as a marker that "this is a measurement" is. I know {{val}} also stands for that purpose but the same applies, mutatis mutandis. It is also extremely helpful for people translating across different Wikipedia (what am I supposed to do, for example, if I translate a French article about an American car?) SimonTrew (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Hans: I would not write 4,700 if only the first two digits are significant: instead, I'd write 4.7 thousand; likewise, I'd not write "50" if only the first digit is significant (third cell of bottom row): I'd write "fifty" (or even "about fifty", if appropriate). And I'd like the template to assume that the zero in "50" is significant, for this reason. I once read about an editor converting numbers such as 187, 190, 191, and 194 and being surprised that the second one was converted with less precision. --A. di M. 13:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed a bug: {{convert|470.00|mi2|km2}} gives 470.00 square miles (1,217.3 km²), with one 0 after the point instead of two. --A. di M. 13:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might say 4.7 thousand square metres too, though many don't, and the template has the capacity for a number of such constructions. However, if you see "4,700", the safest assumption is that it's precise to the nearest 100. As for the bug mentioned above, it should be fixed as soon as an admin puts in the new code. JIMp _talk·cont 17:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hum... maybe for 4,700 I agree, but in cases such as 5,000 I think that assuming that none of the zeroes is significant is excessive. When giving numbers with two sigfigs, there is a 1-in-10 chance that the second one is 0. So I'd assume that numbers such as 500,000 have two significant digits. What do you others think? --A. di M. 22:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which should generally boil down to giving an output of at least two significant figures which is just what the template does. So, yeah, I think that's just about right. JIMp _talk·cont 00:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should assume at least two significant digits in the input, not in the output. 14 kilometres (8.7 mi) is excess precision. --A.  di M. 23:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a template that automatically treats a zero as not a significant figure is a bit of a worry. Take the areas of the states of the United States. it would be bizarre to think that the areas of the states of Washington and North Dakota were less accurately surveyed than the other 48 states simply because the areas in square miles happened to end in two zeros [1]. Michael Glass (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, your first step is to compare these with the areas of other states and base your rounding on that. Without this comparison how else could you justify assuming the zeros were significant? Zeros may or may not be significant whether you use the template, a calculator or do the conversion in your head, you have to deal with this. With nothing else to go on standard practice is to regard the zeros as not significant (and generally they aren't). JIMp _talk·cont 13:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My 2003 Statistical Abstract of the United States (Table No. 359) converts North Dakota's 70,700 sq. mi. (yes MOSNUM fanatics: sq. mi. is their official U.S. Government statistical abbreviation, periods and all, not some archaic idiosyncrasy of mine) to 183,112 sq. km. (their usage again) and Washington's 71,300 as 184,665. (I might be able to dig out the actual acreage, square feet or square meters from somewhere in my desktop's archives.) Just as in the debate over what to introduce between quotation marks, sometimes there's no substitute for checking the source, nor for making your degree of precision clear to the ordinary, non-technical reader. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treating a number ending in a zero as being automatically less accurate than a number ending in any other numeral strikes me as some kind of magical thinking. Obviously there are times when the zero is not significant, but by taking it for granted that it is always non-significant is like some kind of superstition, where inaccuracies come in even tens and hundreds just as bad luck is supposed to come in threes. These things need to be judged on a case by case basis. Michael Glass (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem like magic but it's a pretty standard approach which in the vast majority of cases gives appropriate results. Of course there will be cases where the zero is significant but the template makes allowance for that. If you prefer the calculator, there's nothing wrong with that but you'll still have to know what you're doing. JIMp _talk·cont 15:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jimp. There is a clear difference in implied precision between using 4000 and 4000.0 when specifying a measurement. The default should be to use standard scientific convention for specification of precision. Any "anomalous behavior" can be corrected on a case-by-case basis. Often this is caused by the choice of units, e.g. 4 km vs. 4000 m. However, there are some cases where uniformity in units is desired and there can be unintended results. (For example, the areadisp in {{infobox settlement}}) Plastikspork (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not magical thinking, it's user friendliness. The only reasonable alternative would be for the template not to guess a precision and simply print a red error message when no precision is provided explicitly. That wouldn't exactly encourage editors to use it.

A better example of magical thinking in this context is nonsense such as the claim in the article Vienna that the city had 1,680,266 inhabitants in the 1st quarter of 2009. I hope that's not true, because a completely constant number of inhabitants over 3 months can only be achieved with very rigorous methods that I would probably suffer from when I move there. The same editors who insist on writing out even the last digit in such a case (it happens in all the best encyclopedias, not just Wikipedia) would shy away in horror from the claim that when computed using a certain well-defined algorithm based on well-defined official data, the average population of a certain village in 2008 was "1680.266 inhabitants". Hans Adler 20:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is something flawed in the statement of this section. On one hand, "In the main text of articles, the form 1996– ... is preferred in infoboxes", and yet "The form since 1996 should be used in ... article text and infoboxes". Which is it? And also, I don't see anything wrong with using "xxxx-present" in an infobox or a list. It doesn't flow well in prose which is where I support "since xxxx", but otherwise it need not be so awkward-looking. The section argues against it because "'the present' is a constantly moving target", but using "since xxxx" uses "the present" as a reference point. BOVINEBOY2008 00:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here's the text of WP:OTHERDATE as it now stands - i agree that it is weirdly unclear, as well as pretty unreasonable:

Dates that are given as ranges should follow the same patterns as given above for birth and death dates. Ranges that come up to the present (as of the time that the information was added to the article) should generally be given in ways that prevent their becoming counterfactually obsolete, e.g. from 1996 onward (as of October 2007), not from 1996 to the present; "the present" is a constantly moving target. In the main text of articles, the form 1996– (with no date after the en-dash) should not be used, though it is preferred in infoboxes and other crowded templates or lists, with the caveat that they may need to be examined by editors more frequently to see if they need to be updated; it is helpful to other editors to add an HTML comment immediately after such constructions, giving the as-of date, e.g.: <!--as of 10 October 2007-->. The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text and infoboxes.

i understand that there are situations in which "to the present" can become obsolete faster than anyone will catch & update it, especially if it's buried somewhere in a text. but the prohibition of "YYYY-the present" in info boxes seems pretty outlandish, especially since that exact form is very widely used in infoboxes.

can we alter that bit to leave the phrasing of info boxes up to the relevant projects or template pages? and then can we try rephrasing this section so that it's comprehensible? Sssoul (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can simply be solved if "and infoboxes" is dropped from the last sentence. BOVINEBOY2008 12:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the fully protected project page at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. (edit · history · last · links · sandbox · edit sandbox · sandbox history · sandbox last edit · sandbox diff · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately. Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

Please change in the "Other date ranges" the sentence

"The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text and infoboxes."

to the sentence

"The form since 1996 should be used in article text while the form 1996–present is prefered in infoboxes." BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to editing admin: even though MOSNUM is unprotected, the section to which the edit is requested is protected. The subpage can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Datestempprotectedsection. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The formats listed under Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death don't seem to include anything that would look good or make sense in the lead for a living person for whom the year of birth is in doubt. "Circa" and "floruit" are for ancient Athenians, and "before" is silly, especially when the day is known. The project page entry should allow the use of question marks in such cases, e.g., "Joanne Whalley (born 25 August 19?? in Salford, Greater Manchester) is an English actress." --Milkbreath (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. One thing that is very common is that you can find out the age of a person at a given date. But if you don't know the birthday, that only gives the birth year up to a choice of two years. (The year gotten by subtraction and the previous year.) Came here for some guidance. Was trying to figure out Denis Halliday's year of birth; as a December 17, 1998 news story mentions he was 57, he was born between mid-December 1940 and mid-December, 1941 so it almost certainly is 1941. My solution was to say ca. 1941 in the body and put him in Category:1940s births. Looking at other pages there, there doesn't seem to be a precise standard, but ? marks, ca. , and "year1 or year2" are used frequently enough.John Z (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about the statement "Locations of birth and death are given subsequently rather than being entangled with the dates" in the "Dates of Birth and Death" section. I have deleted some instances of the birthplace when it is included in the opening parentheses alongside the birthdate, e.g. (born September 4, 1972 in Chicago, Illinois) becomes (born September 4, 1972). To me, this is what the indicated statement means. In some instances (primarily in shorter articles that don't have an "Early Life" section or somesuch), the birthplace information is subsequently only given in an infobox. I never delete the birthplace entirely from the article–only in the opening parentheses and only when the information is included elsewhere (including the infobox as "elsewhere"). I have had a disagreement with a couple people who state that the infobox doesn't count in this regard–that "subsequently" doesn't include the infobox. To me, the infobox is part of the article, and hence does count. Am I wrong on this? If so, I suggest that the statement be amended to include "(not including an infobox)" after "subsequently", because if that's the intended interpretation then right now it's misleading. GreenLocust (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the infobox does not count, but I do think your interpretation of the rule is right otherwise. The user of Wikipedia shouldn't have to cast about poking into boxes for the information. Luckily, elegant writing is not mandatory here; you can always just add a sentence to the lead, like, "Doe was born in Farquardt, Indiana, and died in Blisterfoot, Arizona." --Milkbreath (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the full discussion in which three of us have taken the position (same as the fourth editor, Milkbreath, immediately above), contrary to GreenLocust's viewpoint, that he should not be deleting mention of birthplace from the text of dozens of articles on the basis that "it is already in the infobox", please see [2].--Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the hundredth time, the basis is what the style is as given in the MOS, not that "it is already in the infobox". I really wish you would stop misrepresenting my stated reason for the deletions. And I don't think you pulling in selected WikiBuddies counts as a "full discussion", which is why I brought it up here. GreenLocust (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way: each of the deletions by GreenLocust of birthplace info from 60-odd bios, which were not accompanied by placement of the birthplace info elsewhere in the text of the article, bore the following explanatory edit summary: "(no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to propose a change to the project page (which is edit-protected and requires the approval of an admin): Pursuant to discussions here and here, I'd like to change Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death, the last bullet point, "Locations of birth and death are given subsequently rather than being entangled with the dates." I would like it to read thus: "Locations of birth and death should appear in the text of the article rather than being entangled with the dates." What do you think? Will that do it? --Milkbreath (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I favor tweaking it to "in the body of the article rather than being entangled with the dates in the opening." Chris the speller (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be taking place on WT:MOSBIO. Although this guideline (WP:DATE) asks editors to avoid entangling the locations of birth and death with the dates, its concern is with the dates, not with the eventual fate of the locations. WP:MOSBIO lays out what should be included in the opening; locations are not specified. I think that guideline should be changed to specify where the locations should appear. Chris the speller (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a circle forming. Over at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph it says nothing about where the birth and death locations should go. It says only "Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death)", sending us right back here, which is right because an editor will look here to find out how to format the dates, and he will never look there for that. The locations should be in the lead if the article is short, and in the body in sensible chronological position otherwise. This should not be prescribed. The problem that I'm trying to solve is that it is possible to interpret "subsequently" in the guideline as it stands to mean "in the infobox or in the body of the article", leaving the information out of the article proper sometimes, which I and some others agree is undesirable. I don't want to use MOS Dates to prescribe a place for the locations to appear, but it seems that it will be an unavoidable by-product of clarifying the point in question. I'm fine with "body" if everyone thinks that the word will help the inquiring editor to not consider the infobox included better than "text" does. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. I see a couple of issues (and defer to you as to where best to address (if at all).

1) Mr. Green believes that the current MOS language impels him to ensure that the place of birth reflected in the infobox only. With this belief as his guiding light, he has just deleted the textual references to individuals' places of birth from 60-odd articles.

Note: He has not moved the references to a later sentence withing the body of the article; rather, he has deleted the only reference to the person's place of birth in the text of each article.

He believes this is mandated by the MOS language that says: "Locations of birth and death are given subsequently rather than being entangled with the dates." He asserts that "subsequently" does not mean "subsequently within the text of the article," but rather in essence that it means "subsequently within the text of the article or alternatively in the infobox." As he puts it at [3], "The infobox is, in fact, part of the article." (emphasis added)

Everyone but Mr. Green who has commented on this point reads the MOS as meaning in effect: "subsequently within the text of the article -- but that doesn't refer to the summary infobox."

I fear that the change proposed above would not help Mr. Green and his ilk, because they would simply say that "the text of the article" includes the infobox.

I find the explanantion to be somewhat fatuous, because carried out to its logical lengths, one could delete the ballplayer's name, date of birth, and teams played for from the article itself -- as they are all reflected in the infobox as well.

2) The second issue, which is secondary, is whether the rule itself makes sense. While this is supposed to be encyclopaedic, Brittanica and other well-thought-of encyclopedias list the date and the place of birth together at the outset.

And logically, the fact that ballplayer A was born on March 2 may be of significantly less interest than the fact that he was born in the Dominican Republic -- the World Baseball Classic, for example, focuses on place of birth but not birthdate. And it is important for Olympic athletes, Davis Cup players, etc. -- much more so than for example the day and month of birth. I really see no overarching policy reason -- even in a non-prescriptive MOS -- to suggest that it is better to put it in the second sentence (or paragraph, or section) than the first. The sentence structure "X was born on Y in Z" is likely the most common you can find in biographies anywhere. Just my two cents, for what they are worth.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the purpose of this guideline is "to achieve consistency in the use and formatting of dates and numbers". The location of a person's birth is not a date, and not a number. By keeping the discussion here, you are shutting out editors who watch WP:MOSBIO and who know something about how to write biographical articles. This is completely wrong. Chris the speller (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't we just delete the part of this WP that states: "Locations of birth and death are given subsequently rather than being entangled with the dates." It strikes me that if this issue is not relevant on this talk page, the issue is likewise not relevant to this WP. It is the language that is in this WP that is causing all the ruckus. It is the language in this WP that Mr. Green quoted as impelling him to make the deletions. Likewise (logicially) he started this discussion here.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding my two cents, but when I am writing a stub or start class article, especially ones where the birthplace is of key importance (usually athletes that have notability due to national representation), I will always include the birthplace in the opening paragraph, such as John Smith (born 26 January , 2000 in Sydney, Australia). Also can I add, that just because something is stated in an infobox, does not mean it can't be stated in the main article as the infobox should be a brief summary of the page. I think the deletion of a birthplace in the opening paragraph is stupid as it proves to be a key part (which is what the opening paragraph includes) in many high level amateur athlete articles. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 09:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Indent depth has no meaning, just wanted to follow everything so far.) I've always liked and seen the sense in keeping the dates together and by themselves in parentheses right after the name. I won't go into why because it really doesn't matter as long as we all always do it the same way. Consistency throughout the encyclopedia is the reason for any such guideline, and the present formula is at least tidy and easy to understand and implement. The problems are two: editors often don't see the need to adhere to any formula, and the guideline as it stands is unclear. I don't see why we can't specify that information in an infobox is supplemental to an article and not part of it. I have made that suggestion over at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Discussion_at_Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_.28dates_and_numbers.29.23Birthplace_in_opening and invited them to discuss the point here. MoS Infoboxes is the right place to address the problem at the root, and whatever the guideline becomes there can be incorpoarted here and at MoS Bio (where I see that Sssoul has already invited them to join this discussion). --Milkbreath (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really hoping the issue isn't really associated with infoboxes per se, as with how to present information in general. My participation in the MoS Infoboxes area is mostly due to the way Certain Editors (no one here, as far as I know) feel that infoboxes are a blight on Wikipedia and should be eliminated (almost?) everywhere. I fight these people, as I've not seen many articles which wouldn't be improved with an infobox of some sort; everything could use a summary IMHO.

Anyway, while ideally all information in an infobox is present in the article's prose, and not every article, such as the ones I tend to work on, follow that ideal, I suspect biography articles are different from my regular domain of mostly "bridge" (as in crossing valleys/rivers/whatever) articles. Asking general infobox people to come up with a rule which mainly applies to biographies will likely get you a lot of confusion, rather than useful results. I suspect your best bet is to ask people interested in Biography articles specifically, as y'all know more about which makes more sense for such. For all of me, it might be more important for some bio articles to center around dates, and for others (subset: athletes) to center around places. I dunno. - Denimadept (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue arose out of the edits of our friend GreenLocust. If you read his original question above, perhaps you'll agree with my thinking, that the propblem really arises out of the hazily defined role of the infobox in an article. Is it a supplementary summary, a fingertip compendium? Or can it actually be the whole article in and of itself? Or does its role always depend on the context? I think of it as nothing more than a handy way to organize the facts of an article for easy reference by the user, but not as a substitute for the text of the article, which text is the article per se. Me, I like infoboxes. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to me the infobox is clearly a supplement to an article - one that can be skipped without losing any information; articles need to stand on their own, not rely on the infoboxes to fill in blanks. if that's been misunderstood, the guidelines need to be made clearer on that point.

but (like others have already asked): what is the rationale for the dictum that a biography shouldn't state something as plain and simple as "The subject was born on date in place" - does it mess up some template or something? Sssoul (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing started when GreenLocust was going along taking the locations of birth and death out of the parentheses containing the dates of birth and death, in accordance with the MoS. Thing is, he would not restore that information to the text of the article if it was covered in an infobox, following the guideline on this project page that states under Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death, "Locations of birth and death are given subsequently rather than being entangled with the dates." He interpreted "subsequently" to include "in an infobox". I and others think that that is a misinterpretation that needs clearing up on some project page somewhere, I think on at least three: WP:MOSBIO, WP:MOSNUM, and WP:IBX. Locations of birth and death should appear in the running text whether they are in an infobox or not. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I might add that GreenLocust's interpretation has so far been his alone. All others who have opined on that point here or at the discussion at [4] do not read it the same way that GreenLocust reads it.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And might I add that the fact that the people who you invited in (everyone but Milkbreath, Denimadept, and Sssoul), using a misrepresentation while doing so, happen to agree with you is not terribly surprising. You are so disingenuous as to be ridiculous. GreenLocust (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see an infobox for biography is likely a summary, but I don't claim to be definitive. An infobox for a bridge or ferry might contain information otherwise not in the article. My area of interest is in the latter, specifically {{infobox bridge}}. Y'all Bio people need to talk this one out. GreenLocust, you could always get people who agree with you to participate here, y'know. - Denimadept (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green--I don't believe I'm misrepresenting anything. I've pointed people to our discussion at [5], so that they can see it for themselves rather than rely on my characterization. And I've accurately quoted the edit summary that you used in your 60-odd deletions. To the extent that I've invited people, generally its only because I knew them to be involved in discussion of this issue/formation of the existing policy. Prior to this issue arising, I only had prior contact with one of all these people, and in that case only once, in passing.

I think that to the extent that people have spoken to the issue, they do not support your deleting the only textual reference to the location of birth from the article, without re-inserting it later into the article, with your edit summary explanation of "(no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox)", as amplified by the discussion above and at [6]--Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for this dispute to become personal. I would agree that while the birthplace and deathplace should not be within the parenthetical that contains the dates, they do need to be in the article body somewhere. The infobox does not count for this purpose. Powers ^T 18:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

slight diversion

¶ This is one of a whole host of areas where I think the Manual could be usefully shortened with little or no loss (perhaps even some gain), and thus able to concentrate on areas where there are genuine sources of possible confusion, error, ambiguity, obscurity or offensiveness (as well as become more likely to be read, remembered and heeded). I know that I'm in a distinct minority here, because most of those who spare the time and thought to contribute to this talk page are more likely to favour uniformity for its own sake.

But I really think that this is the kind of question (like whether one writes "4 April", "4th April", "4th of April", "April 4", "April 4th" or "April the 4th") that's best left to the context of a specific article and to its editors' own style and preferences. That Napoléon Bonaparte was born in Corsica and died on Saint Helena, that Adolf Hitler was born in Austria and died in Berlin, that Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i, or that Paul Gauguin died in the Marquesas Islands are probably just as important as, or more important than, the exact year of their births or deaths. That a random French writer was born and died in Paris, or a random English thinker in London, is probably less important than the years of his or her life, and could just as well be left to the following text.

Since many biographical articles are inevitably destined to be slightly-expanded stubs, let me note for whatever it's worth that, among my one-volume cyclopedias, Le Petit Larousse Illustré (2004) includes places as well as dates of birth & death within the initial parentheses (brackets), but the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Encyclopedia (2000, based on the Britannica) and the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia (1983) do not. The Cambridge Encyclopedia (2nd edition, 1994) gives just the dates within parentheses, but usually immediately followed by a comma and "born in [place]"; however, the place of death is often not mentioned. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any loosening of the current rule would be beneficial. Again, I favor the deletion of the rule in this specific guidance for the reason raised by the editor above who says that this should be about numbers -- if the talk page discussion should not include a discussion about this issue because it is too far afield, certainly the proscription contained in the rule here should be deleted if for no other reason than it is in the wrong location. I, for one, for the reasons well-put in the above examples of Bonaparte and Hitler, etc., think that that we could do well with the rule being scrapped completely from any other guidance as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now ...

Given the above ample discussion, and the related discussion at [7] that began eight days ago, unless a consensus is voiced against the following two propositions, I propose that within one week:

a) given that a clear consensus has been voiced of the seven editors who have spoken to the issue other than Green Locust (including me, JRA_WestyQld2, Septentrionalis PMAnderson, SMcCandlish, Milkbreath, Sssoul, and Powers T), Green Locust either: 1) roll back his 60-odd deletions of reference to place of birth, or 2) re-insert that information later in each of those articles; and

b) that we delete from this MOS guidance the following phrase: "Locations of birth and death are given subsequently rather than being entangled with the dates."

This change to this guidance would accord with my view.

It would also accord with the views of JRA_WestyQld2 ("when I am writing a stub or start class article, especially ones where the birthplace is of key importance (usually athletes that have notability due to national representation), I will always include the birthplace in the opening paragraph). It would appear as well to accord with the views of Septentrionalis PMAnderson ("not necessary in the first parenthesis - although giving them there is probably harmless for living persons").

The same with the comments of Milkbreath that "you can always just add a sentence to the lead, like, 'Doe was born in Farquardt, Indiana, and died in Blisterfoot, Arizona".

This would also comport with the observations of Shakescene: "That Napoléon Bonaparte was born in Corsica and died on Saint Helena, that Adolf Hitler was born in Austria and died in Berlin, that Barack Obama was born in Hawai'i, or that Paul Gauguin died in the Marquesas Islands are probably just as important as, or more important than, the exact year of their births or deaths. That a random French writer was born and died in Paris, or a random English thinker in London, is probably less important than the years of his or her life, and could just as well be left to the following text. Since many biographical articles are inevitably destined to be slightly-expanded stubs, let me note for whatever it's worth that, among my one-volume cyclopedias, Le Petit Larousse Illustré (2004) includes places as well as dates of birth & death within the initial parentheses (brackets), but the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Encyclopedia (2000, based on the Britannica) and the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia (1983) do not. The Cambridge Encyclopedia (2nd edition, 1994) gives just the dates within parentheses, but usually immediately followed by a comma and "born in [place]"; however, the place of death is often not mentioned."

And Denimadept observes, "For all of me, it might be more important for some bio articles to center around dates, and for others (subset: athletes) to center around places. I dunno."

And Ssoul asks: "(like others have already asked): what is the rationale for the dictum that a biography shouldn't state something as plain and simple as "The subject was born on date in place" - does it mess up some template or something?."

Also with the views of SMcCandlish that at least there should not be a blanket rule of this sort ("If there is not enough material in the article for such a section, then it should be left as-is, because the article is a stub.").

It also comports with the views of Chris the Speller that this is the wrong place-- even on the talk page of this guidance--for a discussion of any such rule ("This discussion should be taking place on WT:MOSBIO. Although this guideline (WP:DATE) asks editors to avoid entangling the locations of birth and death with the dates, its concern is with the dates, not with the eventual fate of the locations. WP:MOSBIO lays out what should be included in the opening; locations are not specified."). If this guidance's talk page is not a place to discuss the issue, I would suggest that the guidance is not the place for such a proscription. If such a proscription should appear at all (and most of us it would seem don't believe that one should appear; certainly not a blanket one as exists now), then it should appear in WP:MOSBIO (which does not have such a proscription).

--Epeefleche (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now free to speak for myself. My understanding is that we had two reasons for generally supporting (birthdate, deathdate) in parentheses.

• The chief one is that four items (December 1, 1804, in Pressburg - June 15, 1848 in Constantinople) in a parenthesis is a little overstuffed.
• Secondarily, placenames are more likely to require some form of context than dates (Pressburg is now Bratislava, and no longer in the Austrian Empire; Constantinople is now Istanbul); whereas the difference between Old Style and New Style is smaller, matters less often, and is less controversial when it does.

Both these are minor - and neither should rule out (born 1968 in Toronto, Canada).

Leave this, as often, to the judgment of the writers of the article; and state our reasons in text so we don't have to go through this again. That's what guidelines are for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unit symbols and preceding numbers are separated by non-breaking spaces. Should the same convention be used for unit names? (e.g. 35 meters for "35 meters") — Nahum Reduta (talk|contribs) 06:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Symbols, being usually short, should kept with their numbers. Whole words should wrap like whole words. JIMp _talk·cont 11:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the two paragraphs under this heading in their own subsection. The reasons I did this are as follows:

• The original placement broke the style of what preceded and followed it.
• The original placement split two related subsections.

The passage was out of place where I found it. However, someone might be able to find a better place for it than where I have put it. Michael Glass (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes to the tone and phrasing of that paragraph—it was almost aggressive, and belaboured the idea of 'the real world', without adequately referring to the role of consensus. I also managed to simplify things a little bit. Do the changes look reasonable? TheFeds 20:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "real world" was use to emphasize that the overnight consensus of 20 people should not force an obscure standard into the Manual Of Style. The consensus has to reflect the writing style of the real world not some ideal dream world. It took 3 years to rid Wikipedia of the Kibibytes and Mebibytes crusade. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rephrased version was reverted by Greg_L (talk · contribs), with the edit summary "No consensus for this change, which was extensively discussed". Since the rephrasing didn't significantly alter the meaning of the paragraphs—though it does adjust the tone—there's no case of violating prior consensus here. (The lengthy prior discussions resulted in consensus leading to the banishment of things like " %" and "MiB" from the MOS—these outcomes were not challenged by the revision.) We've had "B", and now "R"; let's have the "D". TheFeds 07:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first pieces of advice in the section on units of measurement says:

• Aim to write so you cannot be misunderstood.

Unfortunately this section undermines this aim by using two terms that may defy understanding. These are

• region-specific topics, and
• internationally accepted units.

To clear up confusion we need to define what we mean by region-specific topics and internationally accepted units.

In plain English, a region-specific topic, for example, may refer to any region and any topic, e.g., the Pavillon_de_Breteuil, the home of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. But of course it is referring in a roundabout way to US and UK based articles that happen to use Imperial or US Customary units. In this case it may be better to find some other term that won't be so ambiguous or confusing or simply write US-specific articles and some UK-based articles.

Internationally accepted units may need explanaion, perhaps like this:

Internationally accepted units are:

• SI base and derived units
• Non-SI units accepted for use with the SI
• Units based on fundamental constants
• other non-SI units that are used internationally

What do others think?Michael Glass (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds pretty reasonable to me. I certainly agree about region-specific topic. My only minor comment there is that, I imagine, some US-specific articles may also use metric/SI, e.g. those that are writing about science or engineering projects that are based in the US, but use metric/SI units (e.g. NASA projects, and, in theory, all US government projects). So perhaps "most US-specific articles and some UK-specific articles". And why "specifc" for one but "based" for the other?

Cut "base and derived" - just put "SI units"

"other non-SI units that are used internationally; I think you could cut "non-SI" here as it is implied (it is more appropriate for the ones "accepted for use with (the?) SI"). Perhaps give examples, e.g. the degree (angle), nauticl mile? And for constants e.g. Planck's constant (physics), Pi (mathematics), etc. For other non-SI units perhaps carat (gemology). No need for an exhaustive list, just a couple of examples for each.

Since in a sense US Customary/Imperial units are also accepted internationally, perhaps anyway this term is inappropriate. Suggest "widely used worldwide" but that is not brilliant either. SimonTrew (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's intended to refer to the unit in most common use worldwide for the type of measurement being mentioned. For example, the diagonals of cathode-ray tube displays are by far most commonly measured in inches around the world; exceptions are South Africa and Australia where centimetres are used. So, the diagonal of a CRT display should be given in inches and followed by a parenthetical conversion to centimetres; but an article specifically about South African CRTs would use centimetres, with a conversion to inches between parentheses. I'd use "for a given measurement, use the unit which is most commonly used worldwide for that type of measurement", or some less wordy equivalent thereof if anybody can find one. The "for that type of measurement" part is essential, both in non-regional and in regional articles: the unit commonly used for the energy of airsoft pellets is not the same used for ultra-high energy cosmic rays, despite being measurements with the same dimension and roughly the same magnitude; likewise, as Trew said, the units commonly used in US engineering are not the same units commonly used in US household items. (As for "Non-SI units accepted for use with the SI", that's the name the SI uses verbatim, so I'd keep the "non-SI" even if it's redundant. And a list of internationally accepted units including "SI units" and "other non-SI internationally accepted units" looks tautological to me.) As for "region-specific topic", that's as in WP:ENGVAR. --   A. di M. 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.

We clearly need some units that are not accepted by SI at all for use throughout Wikipedia per the principle you brought up above. Obviously, we aren't going to do away with the month or the year, even though neither is recognised by SI for the very good reason that neither is of consistent length. There is also clear benefit in using units such as inches, feet and nautical miles in contexts where they are common internationally, even if they are not defined by SI (I think the nautical mile is, but not the other two). On region-specific topics where there are region-specific deviations from these units (and this is not just in the US and UK), we should adopt the region-specific deviations. Pfainuk talk 22:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-SI units accepted for use with SI lists the minute, hour, day, degree of arc, minute of arc, second of arc, hectare, litre and tonne as non-SI units accepted for use with SI. It doesn't seem to mention multiples of the litre (millilitre, kilolitre, megalitre, etc.). It doesn't mention the week, month, year, decade, century, annum, kiloannum, megaannum, etc. It doesn't mention the kilometre per hour, litre per hundred kilometres, etc. These should be allowed without SI coversions.

The electronvolt (kiloelectronvolt, megaelectronvolt, etc.) is not SI nor is it based on fundamental constants but a hybrid of both but these should be allowed and we generally won't need to convert them to SI.

What about the kilowatt-hour, debye, astronomical unit, lightyear and parsec? I'd be inclined to convert them to SI depending on context.

"other non-SI units that are used internationally" is a little vague. Certainly we'd want the nautical mile and knot in certain contexts but a conversion to kilometres and miles (per hour) would be desirable. As noted above, we could agrue that imperial/US units are used internationally but we'd want these converted. Many units (e.g. the carat, calorie, ton of TNT, oil barrel, millimetre of mercury, atmosphere and Troy ounce) are used internationally but should be converted to SI.

We'd be better of ditching the ångström, bar, millibar, etc. entirely but there probably is little hope of that; however, we don't really need to convert these to SI (since it's just a matter of moving the decimal point). JIMp _talk·cont 23:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely millimetre, kilolitre, kilometre per hour etc are SI derived units (or, at least for the latter, a non-SI derived unit accepted within SI, by transitivity)? I suggested butting "base and derived units" but surely e.g. millimetre is a dervied unit and thus SI.

As for angstrom, you will never get rid of this; in the field I work for (molecular modeling) it is pretty much a standard unit, and to write as tenths (or tenths?) of nanometres would be just odd. By the way my dictionary lists it as "angstrom" with no ring above, though of course its symbol is Å.

calorie poses a unique problem in that of course it should be kilocalorie, and using calorie in the convert template (for typical values for foods) puts the result in joules, not kilojoules i.e. it takes a calorie to be a calorie, not a kilocalorie. Yet the main text may use calorie and it looks clumsy or unduly pedantic to write kilocalorie. I almost had this problem with Bacon today; I used the convert template (with kcal) but elsewhere in the text it used "calorie" and it would have seemed pedantic to change it. Fortunately I escaped that one first as it was quoted (aw "zero calorie") and second since zero calories = zero kilocalories I could avoid the issue.

bar and millibar I would have more support for ditching, although certainly for weather forecasts in the UK the pascal is unheard of, and lines of the same pressure are isobars not isopascals.

Gravity is probably another one to add to the list e.g. defining things as zero G, 1 G, etc. Obviously gravity does vary slightly with longitude, latitude, various geophysical effects and altitude, but for all practical purposes 9.81 m/s² is good enough, and to again a conversion is useful but simply to abandon giving it in G at all would be odd. And since, obviously, standard atmospheric pressure has rather a lot to do with gravity then those, by extension, could be argued to come under that wing.

i've rather rambled off the point. But I suppose what I am arguing is that the list of internationally accepted units in various fields is almost limitless, and really the context of the article should drive what is appropriate, not some more-or-less arbitrary rule. SimonTrew (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SimonTrew asked, by way of a question mark, "surely millimetre, kilolitre, kilometre per hour etc are SI derived units (or, at least for the latter, a non-SI derived unit accepted within SI, by transitivity)?" Meter is a base unit; adding an SI prefix does not change the status of a unit among base, derived, or accepted for use with SI. Litre is a special name for cubic decimeter, which is a derived unit. Kilometer per hour is a unit accepted for use with SI. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding which are base units, which derived, and which non-SI, I suggest a study of the official BIPM document on that. See section 2; prefixes (as multipliers) are in section 3; the litre (or liter) is in section 4 being "a non-SI unit accepted for use with the International System of Units".

A derived unit is the product of base units: whilst the metre is a base unit, the square metre is a derived unit. Metre per second is a derived unit; but since the hour is "a non-SI unit accepted for use with the International System of Units", the kilometre per hour is also.

It's not a good idea to encourage the use of "litre". Whilst the literal definitions of virtually all SI units have changed over the years, they have all retained their practical values - except for the litre. The 1901 definition was 'the volume occupied by a mass of 1 kilogram of pure water, at its maximum density and at standard atmospheric pressure'; in 1960 they noted 'the cubic decimetre and the litre are unequal and differ by about 28 parts in 10⁶', whilst in 1964 they declared 'that the word "litre" may be employed as a special name for the cubic decimetre' and recommended that 'the name litre should not be employed to give the results of high-accuracy volume measurements'. See p.141 of the PDF doc linked earlier. According to my physics teacher, they made a mistake when cutting the original prototype kilogramme. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not a good idea to encourage the use of 'litre'." That's nonsense. This depends entirely on the purpose. Litres (cubic decimetres) and millilitres (cubic centimetres) are absolutely standard units throughout most of the metrised world. I have never heard anyone use "kilolitres", though. It's clear what is meant, but everybody calls it cubic metres. But a 2-litre bottle is a 2-litre bottle, not a 2-cubic-decimetre bottle. Trying to forbid such standard units as the litre looks to me like an attempt to introduce a problem that otherwise exists only in the minds of proponents of pre-metric systems: that the metric system is "unpractical" because it doesn't have all the necessary "natural" units such as the pint. We already have the litre and as the UK is slowly crawling towards full metrication I predict that use of the "metric pint" of 1/2 litre = 0.88 Imperial pt = 1.06 US pt will become standard in the same way that the metric pound of 1/2 kg = 1.1 lbs avdp has been standard in large parts of Europe for a hundred years. It's probably as easy as the pubs beginning to call a pint of beer 1.136 metric pints once they are allowed to do this.

In science and technology, cubic centimetres and cubic decimetres are also used under these names. But only very rarely in normal life. Hans Adler 18:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine that we actually ever do use the litre for high-accuracy volume measurements. And for most applications, an inaccuracy of 28 parts per million is so much smaller than the margin for error inherent in the measurement that it's totally irrelevant. To put it into perspective, that's a difference of nearly 16 litres when measuring the amount of water in Sydney Harbour. I see very little reason to avoid the litre normal (non-scientific) circumstances. Pfainuk talk 18:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, it's a problem stemming from an error that was corrected more than 40 years ago. For more than 40 years litre has been an exact synonym for cubic decimetre. We would only ever have to worry about this problem should we encounter pre-1964 sources with high-precision litre-based measurements. They would have to be converted into modern litres. But exactly the same problem exists with inches and whatnot, since very roughly around the same time the inch was defined as precisely 2.54 cm, etc., after it was previously slightly different in various parts of the world. Hans Adler 18:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

28 parts in 10⁶ ain't that bad for two centuries ago and greater accuracy than you mostly find here. We surely shouldn't discourage the use of the litre and millilitre in cases where they are used in the world out there. Ask for a pint of beer in the pub & you shouldn't expect a 28-parts-per-million accuracy. JIMp _talk·cont 18:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK, maybe I overstressed one tiny aspect which doesn't really matter. It began with my possible misreading of what had gone earlier. There appeared to be disagreement concerning which are base SI units, and which derived SI units, and somebody mentioned litre (or kilolitre, or something like that).

My intended point was that the BIPM document has already done all the categorisation, and that based on what it has on page 124 "Table 6. Non-SI units accepted for use with the International System of Units", litres are not SI units (base or derived). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that there are some units that are not accepted by the BIPM but that we still have to accept, depending on context. The most obvious are the month and year, which are not defined by the BIPM for the very good reasons that they are not of consistent length. In other contexts, there are units that are generally used internationally - the barrel of oil, the inch for measuring the sizes of television screens (as cited above) - that are specifically not accepted by the BIPM.

We should generally use the most commonly used unit in a given context (and I would suggest that may well include using different units in different regional contexts). Pfainuk talk 20:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why Michael Glass is continuously starting this kind of discussion. The intent of the rules about use of units is absolutely clear: Use those units that will be expected in this context by the greatest fraction of the expected readership. If some readers will need a conversion to understand a measurement properly, provide it.

The metric system in the sense of SI units + units accepted for use with SI is a useful first approximation for the practical result of this rule. It's not quite correct for a number of reasons

• SI does not give sufficient guidance to choose, e.g., between millilitre and cubiccentimetre.
• In specific contexts, certain units that are explicitly not approved are dominant and must normally be used, e.g.:
  • Years for longer periods of time.
  • Light years for distances between stars.
  • Inches for TV and computer screens.
  • Gallons for raw oil.
  • Typographic points in printing.
  • Metric carat for jewels.
  • Kilometres per hour for car speeds.
  • Litres per 100 kilometres for car fuel consumption.
  • Nautical miles for distances at sea, especially for the definition of territorial waters etc.
• In some regions – especially, but not only, the not yet fully metric countries – the usage patterns for units diverge from the international ones. This must also be taken into account whenever we have reason to believe that most readers will be from a specific region:
  • Inches for TV and computer screens in Australia. (It's hard to see how that might become relevant, though.)
  • Miles for road distances in the US and the UK.
  • Miles per hour for car speeds in the US and the UK.
  • Miles per gallon for car fuel consumption in the US and the UK.
  • Kilocalories instead of kilojoules for food energy in some countries.
  • Dekagrammes instead of grammes for cold cuts in Austria. (Again, this is more theoretical. I am sure one can find better examples.)

I see no need to change the current text. Hans Adler 21:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some countries, such as Italy (and, I think, most of the EU), food energy is "officially" measured in kilojoules, but about 99% of people would normally use kilocalories for that (calling them "calories" in casual speech, except when they want to make the quantity sound bigger, as in a TV ad claiming that their product can help you burn "up to 1000 kilocalories"). (And cold cuts are measured in hectograms in Italy.) --   A. di M. 21:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My aim is the clarify the wording, not change the policy. If the intent of the wording is clear, then it might be possible to have the wording equally clear. For example, 'some regional topics' might be preferable to 'region-specific topics', and I can't see the problem of defining 'internationally accepted units'. For example:

Internationally accepted units are:

• SI units
• Non-SI units accepted for use with SI (e.g., the nautical mile)
• Units based on fundamental constants (e.g. Planck's constant)
• other units that are widely used internationally.

The basic problem is that we have the metric system that is used in most countries of the world, the US Customary system that is widely used in the US and the Imperial System, parts of which are still used in the UK and to a lesser extent in other English-speaking countries, and also in aviation and some specialised measurements such as computer screens. To cater for the needs of an English-speaking readership we need to provide both metric and traditional measures in a wide range of contexts. I think if we concentrate on the needs of readers we might make more progress. Michael Glass (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article the nautical mile is not accepted for use with SI. The phrase "other units that are widely used internationally" is pretty vague, in contrast to the narrowness of the three preceding points. Yes, that some of us use the metric system and others use either the US or imperial system is a problem. How does the change you're suggesting solve this? JIMp _talk·cont 00:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The knot ant the nautical mile are listed here [8]. Table 8 is appended to Chapter 4 of the BIPM brochure which is entitled, "Non-SI units accepted for use with the SI, and units based on fundamental constants". However, I do agree that "other units that are widely used internationally" is too vague. It could be rephrased as "other units that are widely used internationally for specific purposes" but if we tried to be more specific than that, someone is sure to come up with some measure that isn't covered. That said, I would welcome a better phrase, if anyone could come up with it. Finally, Wikipedia can't solve the issue of English-speaking people using different weights and measures; what we might be able to do is work out how to cater for these differences and how to express the guidelines in a way that is clear and helpful. Perhaps something like this would be the way to go:

Internationally accepted units are:

• SI units
• Non-SI units accepted for use with SI (e.g., the nautical mile)
• Units based on fundamental constants (e.g. Planck's constant)
• other units that are widely used internationally for specific purposes.

Michael Glass (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about the introduction of the section (the three-bullet list immediately under the header "Units of measurement"), you might replace "internationally accepted units for the topic at hand" with "the units in most widespread use worldwide for the type of measurement in question". As for the first bullet of "Which units to use", I don't think it's broken and doesn't need fixing. (As for your list, it'd be close to tautological if all SI units were "internationally accepted", and even that isn't the case: the megasecond isn't internationally accepted—and my browser's spell-checker even underlines it in red.) If something should be fixed, I'd replace "region-specific" with "regional and historical" (you might want to use cubits first in Noah's Ark), and the point about conversion should be added to the general principles (first three bullets), too. --   A. di M. 10:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cubits at Noah's Ark is a good example for a problem I was always sure must exist. For history/archaeology articles historical units are sometimes the best choice. In history because we may know the precise number in an obsolete unit but have no certainty about the conversion factor. In archaeology because measures may be exact integer multiples of a well known obsolete unit. In such situations the obsolete units are internationally the most accepted ones. Hans Adler 12:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and indeed for Goliath's height etc (four cubits and a span wasn't it?) I forget how many spans there are in a cubit but it is well-defined, but nobody really knows how big a span was. A similar problem occurs with Roman stadia and for that matter inches/ounces (uncia); obviously we have a rough idea but not an exact one, which doesn't stop maths working but if quoting Latin mathematics that gives an example in these units, it is pretty pointless to convert them (e.g. one might say – I make this up – "if a right triangle has sides by the right angle of three uncia and four uncia, the the third side will be five uncia" and that is good regardless of how big the inch is.) SimonTrew (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to see that the wording of the policy has been revised in the light of this discussion. I think that something could be done about "country-specific" and "region-specific" and I'll come back to this discussion with a further proposal later. Michael Glass (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is {{date}} not mentioned at #Dates? Is it deprecated? It would save a lot of the which-order-do-we-put-it-in argument, if the <date formatting style> parameter be omitted. Consider: whether I use {{date|15 August 2009}}, {{date|August 15, 2009}} or {{date|2009-08-15}} these are all displayed the same, ie 15 August 2009, 15 August 2009 or 15 August 2009 - I personally see 15 August 2009, but you might not. If every date be wrapped in that template, editors could use any format they liked and users would see whatever format they liked. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the template doesn't work like that (i.e. it doesn't autoformat the date). Furthermore it uses {{#time:}} and so is limited to what the parser function can handle (e.g. it won't go beyond 100 AD). We'd be relying on having every date wrapped in it, which is a big ask. It would be a whole lot of work for the benifit of a few, i.e. those logged in users with prefs set. And, worst of all, we'd be ignoring the inherent problems of autoformatting, e.g. "a 15 August 2009 decision" autoformats to "a August 15, 2009 decision" (if your prefs are set to muddled) which is grammatically incorrect. JIMp _talk·cont 22:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, except for one brief mention ("{{convert}} can be used"...) there is no mention of that template either, and it is neither recommended nor deprecated, just says it can be used. I presume it is the intention not to link MoS guidelines to specific templates: if I wrote another set of conversion templates to "compete" with {{convert}}, that also met MOSNUM, they would be equally valid to use; as is doing the conversions longhand. SimonTrew (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says "5 kg (11 lb) bag of carrots", but it also says "(When they form a compound adjective, values and spelled out units should be separated by a hyphen.)" Which is right? Art LaPella (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"kg" and "lb" are not "spelled out" units; "kilogram" and "pound" are. --   A. di M. 22:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:HYPHEN. JIMp _talk·cont 22:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenation is more frequent in British than American English; the advice in question is misguided anglicization. In the sentence quoted, even the British might not hyphenate, since the grouping is made clear by the parentheses. So the sentence is right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if someone's smart enough to write a template to do automatic currency conversions? I'd love to be able to put in something from which Wikipedia readers automatically choose what currencies they want the data in. Suppose NZ GDP is $42,052 (NZ$). And I put this in an article. Is there some way a user could click on a button next to the amount to switch the currency? Like, click, and it's $28K USD. Or, click, it's $42K NZD. Or, click some other currency? It would be really cool to have. Simpler variant: assume no inflation and its easier but less accurate. A simple template that translates NZ$ to US$ or vice versa based on today's exchange rate, and ignores inflation considerations or the passage of time. Complex variant: Suppose a fact about money was added on date X. But today it's date Y. So, information needed would be: money amount in NZ$ on date X; conversion rate NZ$ to US$ on date X; inflation (or deflation) of US currency between date X and date Y; lastly, date Y. Boom -- up-to-date accurate amount information. No way Encyclopedia Brittanica could ever do that. That would be really cool! As far as I can tell, Village Pump doesn't have any converter tools for inflation or currency conversions. Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

There are good reasons why not. It depends so much on whether you are quoting an historical price at its historical value or current value: and, if at its current value, how you adjust for inflation (which inflationary index you use, e.g. retail price index, consumer price index, inflation based on the rise in cost of houses or mars bars or bread or any particular item); second, that since most currencies are on floating exchange rates the article will constantly change every time it is accessed, or, in the alternate, will need to state when and where the rate was taken from; third, that it would require use of a currency conversion site, and (assuming permission was granted to do that on a grand scale) which to choose?; fourth, that many currencies are not widely traded and so, for example, to convert danish krone into kenyan shillings is almost entirely meaningless; fifth, that even freely traded currencies such as US dollars have a variety of exchange rates: the spot rate given for today is not what you will get at a bureau de change, so which do you choose?

It is best to have the editor make those decisions, adding references to where the conversion came from if necessary, rather than make WP do it. In general prices are quoted ether in US dollars or in the prevailing currency of the article's subject (e.g. the local currency or historical currency). If a reader really wants a currency conversion not provided, they can look up a conversion site themselves, surely; and if they can't find it, then an automated tool is not likely to either. SimonTrew (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there can be problems with a currency converter template, particularly as time span lengthens from date of entry to date of readership. A time span of twenty to fifty years can seriously begin distorting values as you say, and any calculator would be problematic. But I still think a currency converter toggle switch, next to money figures, is a good idea, particularly for relatively-recent information (ie time between info added and info read), to convert currencies. Then inflation is miniscule. I see it primarily as an aid to readers. Some readers think in terms of US$ or a commonly used currency like the Euro; others will think in terms of their native currency. Why not permit readers the option to choose which figure they'd prefer? (And I don't think anybody would seriously want to convert a rarely-traded currency with another rarely-traded currency -- I doubt readers would expect Wikipedia to even try that). Stick to a pure currency converter (forget inflation). For example, in the article on New Zealand, there are many references to dollar amounts -- sometimes US$, sometimes NZ$ (technically, the policy is to use native currency like you say, but I bet many New Zealanders think in terms of US dollars, and foreigners won't know which is being referred to -- since NZ calls their money "dollars" too). I think there is consensus about particular exchange rates -- there's some variation, but not much. For example, $1 New Zealand dollar is worth about $.67 US dollars, and there are different rates today which vary only slightly from that amount, and I don't think such variation is a good excuse to ditch a good idea. At first, when I read the New Zealand article, I thought the figure $28,000 average GDP of New Zealanders was in New Zealand dollars -- it happened to be in US dollars so it threw me off -- the actual GDP figure is closer to $42,000 NZD, or about $28K US (numbers slightly off here -- I'm working from memory). But I'm saying that a simple toggle button next to money amounts, letting a reader a choice to switch from a native currency to a commonly traded currency (USD, Euros, pounds, yen perhaps) would be a (1) helpful (2) more accurate than letting readers mentally guess the exchange rate (3) easy to program (4) a nice extra which differentiates Wikipedia from book-bound static encyclopedias which has (5) numerous applications.Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

¶ I'm too sleepy to go through all these points seriatim, but (with the blithe obliviousness of the technically-ignorant), I don't see insuperable obstacles on either side:

1. After preliminary discussion here, this proposal should probably move over to one section or other of Wikipedia:Village pump, or perhaps a template project or talk page. Let us know where to follow the discussion once it's moved.
2. What's needed by most readers is something that would convert a cited amount of money of whatever era into the reader's preferred currency now. When the number of pounds sterling, say, that a Victorian Englishman would exchange in 1850 for a U.S. Double Eagle of 1850 is a significant fact in itself, the conversion will usually already be in the text. The average reader would probably want to know the rough value of that 1850 double-eagle in the pounds (or euros or dollars) that he uses today, rather than having to do a second conversion from 1850 pounds to 2009 pounds.
3. What's also called for is just a rough indication of a sum's value, not a precise conversion.
4. When there's little bilateral exchange of two little-traded currencies, just let the template convert each into some relatively-universal currency, be it euros, US dollars or Special Drawing Rights, and then calculate a synthetic result that won't differ too much from what happens on those occasions when Kenyan shillings are traded directly for Danish krone. (That's the function of arbitrage, to exploit and thus flatten any discrepancies.) This kind of conversion happens all the time in the real world (e.g. translating Afrikaans texts into Catalan via some third language).
5. Similarly for converting that 1850 double-eagle. First let the template convert its value then into today's US dollars and then into pounds sterling (etc.) of 2009.
6. Because both the Danish krone and the Kenyan shilling have a real value in today's US dollars, even a hypothetical conversion — which may not represent the average of bilateral transactions in an active free market — isn't meaningless for the limited purpose of giving the Danish or Kenyan reader some idea of what a sum of shillings or krone would be worth to her. (What would be meaningless is pricing an 1850 double-eagle in imputed 1850 euros.)
7. There are many things that Wikipedia changes daily, weekly or monthly. A table of currencies wouldn't be a big challenge so long as someone or some project is prepared to commit to meeting it regularly.
8. But, on the other hand, one shouldn't be too sanguine or blasé about the slowness of inflation or the stability of exchange rates. Not so very long ago, the pound sterling jumped above US $2, and almost achieved parity with the euro, while the Canadian dollar reached near-parity with the U.S. dollar, before they sank back much closer to their historic relative values. And a few successive years of 5-8% inflation, as opposed to 1-3%, can make a great difference in a currency's value, both at home and abroad. So the conversion tables need to be relatively fresh. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shakescene, thanks for your comments. User Ohconfucius found a template which does currency conversions. But you have to be in edit mode to see it working: As of this week (data updated weekly), the exchange rate between the New Zealand and United States dollars is User:7/Template:fx.

I only gave the NZD amount; I didn't write the US$ value -- the template fished it from somewhere. The template is User:7/Template:fx It converts a number of different currencies into US dollars. And it seems to work; it picks off an exchange rate which seems right. And there's no button for users to click. Plus, there may still be bugs in it (if a space follows the second closing parenthesis, weird stuff seems to happen). Rather, it just converts currencies (doesn't account for inflation etc). And it's on a user talk page as opposed to an official Wikipedia page; so I had problems convincing other editors to use it. User Gadfium thinks the community needs to come to consensus before it can be widely used; Gadfium was skeptical that the conversion rates weren't being updated enough (last update = May; I'm writing this in August). Last, instead of asking a Wikipedia community member to constantly update tables, why can't we fish off currency conversion rates from an established non-Wikipedia site, and quote the site as the source? Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer[reply]

The guideline for naming centuries (here and at WP:MOS) has been hotly contested, and I do not think we are ready to go back to that topic yet. But I am interested in just one provision:

Centuries are named in figures: (the 5th century CE; 19th-century painting); when the adjective is hyphenated, consider nineteenth-century painting, but not when contrasted with painting in the 20th century.

I would like to change the provision to this, to remove what I regard as an unsourced and probably unprecedented invitation to inconsistency:

Centuries are named in figures: the 5th century CE; 19th-century painting.

Can anyone cite a reputable guide that allows for nineteenth-century painting even in the same text (let alone contrasted with) as painting in the 20th century? If no one does, I will proceed with the change. (Even if someone does, I would invoke more major guides that do not support such an inconsistency.)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought, even when it is to be read by the Masters of MoS, that "but do not consider nineteenth-century painting when contrasted with painting in the 20th century", which is the plain meaning of the key clause, would have been condescending and verbose. Guess not. I will amend accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In the process, I settled on "but do not consider it when..."; the referent of it ought to be plain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PMAnderson, the matter has been raised for discussion, and a specific question was put forward for editors to respond to. Please do not pre-empt such discussion; and please focus on the question that I have raised. While the matter is under focused discussion, it is not appropriate to shift or dissipate the focus. For that reason I am reverting your edit, and I await your response to the clear point that I raise in this section.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 07:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that your original question is not at all clear to me. Can you check it for typos (e.g., did you make the shift from "19th" to "nineteenth" because it's your main point or is it accidental???) and clarity? Hans Adler 07:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I must allow that the question may not have been clear. It is free of typos, though, and I cannot see how it can be construed in any way other than what I intended. Hans, I can only think that the confusion arises because the guideline as presently worded is really strange!

Let me put it this way:

The guideline in its present form (correctly cited above) suggests that nineteenth-century painting is acceptable instead of 19th-century painting. It only excludes nineteenth-century painting when this would be "contrasted with painting in the 20th century" (to quote verbatim). What I ask is this: why should we ever want nineteenth-century painting in an article? The central point of our guideline proposes these forms: the 5th century CE and 19th-century painting. Should an article have nineteenth-century painting at all, then? That would be inconsistent with other usages in the same text that do follow our guideline, perhaps like painting in the 20th century at several paragraphs distance from the spelled-out form we are talking about.

I asked, and still ask, is there any reputable style that permits nineteenth-century painting as well as, somewhere far from that phrase, something like painting in the 20th century and 21st-century computer art? In the same text? (Never mind "when contrasted with"!) I suspect there is no such style guide, but I am waiting for an answer.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. You were clear and I simply wasn't sufficiently concentrated. Sorry! And yes, I support making it completely uniform for simplicity. Hans Adler 08:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica is clear, and clearly mistaken. The guideline, as it stands, means:

Centuries are named in figures: (the 5th century CE; 19th-century painting); when the adjective is hyphenated, consider nineteenth-century painting, but do not consider it when contrasted with painting in the 20th century.

I am perfectly willing to add the bolded words, since "but not when..." seems to be confusing; indeed I did, and Noetica reverted me. But, short or long, this advises against using nineteenth-century painting and painting in the 20th century in the same context.

Noetica's question therefore is like "when did you stop beating your wife?": tendentious, inflammmatory, and irrelevant to the issue at hand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) i support changing the provision to just "Centuries are named in figures: the 5th century CE; 19th-century painting." it's simple, clear and consistent. Sssoul (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose, also wrong. This is the besetting problem of MoS; the declaration that "I don't happen to write this way, therefore let's make a rule that nobody else can". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PMAnderson:

I have now twice clearly asked my question. Because of the confusing way the guideline is worded (with an addition that you are responsible for some time ago, as I recall), the guideline itself is hard to make sense of. For everyone's benefit, and especially for you, I will make the point another way, and pose two distinct questions, with some preliminaries:

The guideline certainly allows that the 5th century CE and 19th-century painting may occur in the same article. Call these standard forms, for our convenience here, OK? Now, the guideline also seems to allow that the spelt-out form nineteenth-century painting may occur in the same article as those standard forms, provided only that nineteenth-century painting is not near those standard forms. That is the best sense I can make of the current wording: "but not when contrasted with painting in the 20th century". If another sense is intended, it is utterly obscure; and your recent suggestion merely confirms that this is the sense of the current guideline. Now, here are two good questions:

1. Why should nineteenth-century painting be allowed anywhere in the same article as the standards forms? That is plain inconsistency, and therefore against one of our major principles. What style guide recommends such an inconsistent practice? I have not seen one, and I would like someone to produce evidence of such a guide.
2. Beyond the matter of consistency within an article, why should the form nineteenth-century painting be allowed at all, anywhere in any article? Most of us want consistent, simple guidelines to settle needless disputes, and to guide editors. Look at the many fine articles in Category:Centuries, where editors strive for elegant and efficient uniformity in these matters. Why undo that effort?

If you can't provide precedent from any reputable style guide for your complex old wording (or your complex proposed new wording, which has the same meaning), and if others prefer a plain simple guideline, we should change the wording to this:

Centuries are named in figures: the 5th century CE; 19th-century painting.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 14:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just responded to both those points, but let me try recasting - especially since there is a third red herring, . I will await a little more evidence before resorting to dispute resolution on this confused and obnoxious thread.

• The present wording says nothing, for or against, on using painting of the 20th century at one end of an article and nineteenth-century painting at the other. Why does Noetica assume it does? Whether those are a clash depends on the taste of the individual editor. Why do we need to rule on it, except to satisfy a will to power? That's the red herring.
• Does Noetica deny that nineteenth-century painting is English usage, which a literate editor e may well write, and a literate reader see, without complaint? If xe does not, then we have no reason to prevent it, save the base satisfaction of compelling all Wikipedia to follow the tastes of a handful of meddlers here.
• Since the present text advises against what everybody agrees is undesirable - a meaningless failure of parallellism - what's the problem with it? I have no objection to striking the whole clause, if it confuses people. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What or who exactly is "obnoxious" here? No one has rushed to edit, apart from you! Three times I ask my questions, and three times you refuse to answer – or cannot answer. What reputable guide supports anything like the inconsistency you suggested when you tampered non-consensually with this guideline in the first place, some months ago?

To answer your question, even if you ignore mine:

PMA's question: The present wording says nothing, for or against, on using painting of the 20th century at one end of an article and nineteenth-century painting at the other. Why does Noetica assume it does?
Noetica's answer: I don't assume that it does that! I think it should make it clear that the two quite different forms are not to be used in one article; but it suggests that it might be all right, by saying in effect only that the two forms should not be in close proximity. That's what "contrasted with" must involve, if it means anything at all.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 14:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have received three paragraphs of answer (which are themselves not new); you acknowledge this by responding to them; you then complain that you have gotten none. What you have failed to get is agreement - but this is because you are insisting on two (inconsistent) useless and meddlesome conventions, which many competent writers will simply ignore, as most of MOS's half-educated wikicreep should be ignored.

• That Wikipedia should never use nineteenth-century painting. Why not? It's perfectly good and natural English.
• That Wikipedia shouldn't use nineteenth-century painting, if painting in the 20th century happens to occur in the same article. Arguable but silly.

Make up your mind which you support, or -better- abandon both, and let editors write any respectable variant of English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: 1) It's not like style guides must explicitly permit some constructions for them to be valid English; you just need that they don't forbid them. I'm quite sure there's no style guide stating that "the pronouns somebody and someone may be used in the same article", or even that "the number of items in a bulleted list may be a multiple of six", but this is no good reason to forbid using "somebody" and "someone" in the same article (or even banning "somebody" altogether), nor to forbid six-, twelve- and eighteen-item bulleted lists. 2) At least to me, all other things being equal, very small numbers look better when spelled out: e.g. "third century" rather than "3rd century". (But I would still be consistent with numbers of the same type, avoiding e.g. "third century" and "17th century", in the same section.) Anyway, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and if all beholders around here believe otherwise, I'll follow suit and always use "3rd century", should I ever have to mention that period of time in an article. --___A. di M. 19:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Hans, Sssoul, and Noetica that the new suggestion is ideal. We should change the text. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur. One of the main point of a manual of style is to select among all the plausible variants a standardized one, to allow for greater consistency across articles. It seems that PMA is arguing that any form of standard English is acceptable here and that we ought not further constrain the variants to be used. I disagree; while I have no particular preference vis-a-vis "19th" versus "nineteenth", I think that the consistency of picking one and sticking to it in well-edited articles enhances the encyclopedia. Editors of course remain free to not follow the MOS in their submissions; and other editors will come along and make the important articles MOS-compliant. Studerby (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my "concur" to Noetica, Hans, Sssoul, Andy Walsh, and Studerby. Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my "concur" to Noetica, Hans, Sssoul, Andy Walsh, Studerby, and Goodmorningworld.  HWV258  22:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, per A. di M.'s edit above (giving "third century" as an example) I can see leaving wiggle room for the occasional exception. Does it need to be made explicit? I think not: overdrafting makes a guideline harder to absorb. Remember the caveat at the top of the MOS page, that should be sufficient. Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] PMAnderson writes above: "You have received three paragraphs of answer ...". Whether those many paragraphs of prevarication qualify as "answers" is a matter for semantic analysis. One thing is clear: they are not answers to my questions.

I thank other editors for their clear responses. My comment on them: simple consistency is usually the best policy, and all the most influential style guides aim for that. But yes: there is always the provision for exceptions in practice, stated at the top of our MOS pages. Editors at an article can negotiate such things on their merits, aided by clear consensual guidelines from their Wikipedia Manual of Style. Outside of Wikipedia I myself prefer to use the fully worded forms like in the nineteenth century and twelfth-century French kings. But at Wikipedia, I adapt. So do we all. Almost all, I mean.

If there is no substantial support for the present unprecedented and obscure guideline, we should amend the text to the simpler form in a couple of days.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any answer to my question: "what's wrong with nineteenth-century?". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"wrong" is a pejorative way of looking at the issue. A Manual of Style provides guidelines for how editors prefer to see text in a publication. You should be asking the question: "why is consensus forming that prefers '19th' over 'nineteenth'?". Because one method is preferred doesn't make the other method "wrong". Cheers.  HWV258  00:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't. This page is too obscure and too ill-frequented to have any such consensus. But in fact, the real question is "what do we do when someone doesn't like what some small pool of editors like?" (in this case. 19th-century). Some people say "away with it: the six of us don't like it; you must use what we like," but the useful parts of MOS say what GregL says below: "don't use it then." That way we will find out those few cases in which Wikipedia as a whole has consensus; when article-space as whole (unmeddled by bots) overwhelmingly does something one way or the other. (We can then say "almost all Wikipedians do X," which is valuable information for editors, while it remains true.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries might work the way that PMA wants (descriptionist instead of prescriptivist) but no Manual of Style ever has. Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then Manuals of Style are contrary to policy. GMW might also try consulting Otto Jespersen's A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. But first he might try the paragraph I just wrote, which does not say "why be prescriptivist?", it offers two alternatives when - as will happen with advice (like this proposal) not supported by English usage, but by the prejudices of six editors- other editors disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. You use the word "prefudice" when you should use "point of view". (For the record, I guess I can assume that your "point of view" is not prejudiced?)  HWV258  01:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The expected response. You persist with your pejorative view of the "world". The real point being (apart from what I raised above is) that the MOS is a styleguide. It allows editors to check what is the established way of constructing something on WP. Of course, if an exception is needed (that is supported by local consensus), then so be it. Regarding, "This page is too obscure and too ill-frequented to have any such consensus"—that is a personal view (and of course anyone is welcome at MOS to add to the debate). Regarding "you must use what we like"—that isn't correct (rather that is what you believe will happen). In actuality, if there is a localised dispute, there are two practical options: start a discussion on the MOS to allow an exception, and/or start a local debate in order to enforce the exception to the guideline. Assume good faith is the key to this issue.  HWV258  01:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PMAnderson, I suspect you disagree with this concept, but I think most of us believe the Wikipedia editors form a community of practice (or discourse community, in Foucault's language) that will decide what is "right" and "wrong" by consensus. What emerges is the MoS. If we simply leaving wagging in the wind for every individual to decide, we have no community. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Markup for examples and mentions at WP:MOSNUM remains inconsistent, even more than at WP:MOS. I have done a little housekeeping editing just now, but I did very little with such markup.

Some points are clear: for good reasons we generally use italics for a mention (see WP:MOS for discussion of the use–mention distinction) as opposed to an example, so we should be consistent with that:

The word approximately is preferred to approx.

Not:

The word "approximately" is preferred to "approx".

But also, I should say, not this:

The word approximately is preferred to approx.

I don't say that exactly these cases turn up; I merely illustrate. Sometime we will need to discuss more subtle cases, and then go through these pages making all such markup rational and consistent. I propose that the topic be dealt with at WT:MOS, rather than here, for three reasons:

1. The development of template:xt was managed there more than here.
2. The implementation of that template is more advanced at WP:MOS than here at WP:MOSNUM.
3. WP:MOS is the central page for the whole Manual of Style, and the decisions made there can reasonably be applied to all the other affected pages.

Do editors agree to centralising the discussion there?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 07:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree to discuss it there. Anyway, since no thread about this was created there yet (move/copy this when you do):

According to that, we would write that the symbol of the metre is m, but that would be a false statement; italic m is the symbol of mass. The symbol of the metre is a roman small em. (This was the reason why I created {{xt}} in the first place.) So I'd prefer the use of quotation marks for mentions. (I don't think this could cause problems, because I can't see a situation where you'd mention a string containing quotation marks itself other than as an example, in which case {{xt}} is appropriate, or as computer code, in which case <code> is appropriate.) --   A. di M. 08:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, A di M. I am well aware of the protracted difficulties we had concerning these symbols and italics. That gives yet another reason for centralising the discussion and dealing with all such issues together in orderly fashion. It will not be easy; but with goodwill, flexibility, and rational analysis we can sort it out. I propose that we postpone it for about a week, now that we have signalled the discussion here.

Are there any more broad procedural points from editors?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this edit? The text before this edit was discussed in /Archive 123#Comparison of texts in "Large numbers"; that version was essentially the one by TheFeds, who had bothered the gargantuan nasty task of wading through all the archived discussions about this. The edit removed, among other things, the permission to use commas in numbers 1000 ≤ x < 10,000 which are not years or page numbers, which is the current behaviour of {{convert}} and some other templates I can't remember right now. --___A. di M. 10:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unwise. It should at least be tweaked to permit such forms when an author wishes to discuss 1,944 guns and would like to be clear that he does not mean military production in the year of Normandy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I (obviously) prefer the version prior to the change. I've left some comments in the "Flurry of edits" section below. TheFeds 17:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the following wording be considered for the policy:

In place of this:

Current wording

Which units to use

• In articles which are not region-specific, prefer internationally accepted units. Usually, they are the units of the International System of Units (SI) and non-SI units accepted for use with SI; but there are various exceptions for particular classes of measurements. However, on region-specific topics, use the units used in the place the article is about, for example US customary units for US-related articles.
  • When different parts of the English-speaking world use different units for the same type of measurements, add a conversion so that all English-speaking readers will be able to understand one of the units. For example, the Mississippi River has a length of 2,320 miles (3,734 km); the Murray River has a length of 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi). (See {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing below.)

I propose considering this wording:

Michael Glass's proposal

Which units to use

• Apart from US and some UK-related articles where US or Imperial measures are used, prefer internationally accepted units. These are units of the International System of Units (SI), non-SI units accepted for use with SI, units based on fundamental constants (e.g. Planck's constant), and other units that are widely used internationally for specific purposes.
  • In general, add a conversion so that all English-speaking readers will be able to understand one of the units. For example, the Mississippi River has a length of 2,320 miles (3,734 km); the Murray River has a length of 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi). (See {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing below.)

My intention is not to change the policy but to express it more clearly and concisely. Any comments? Michael Glass (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanderson's proposal

I would split the difference:

Which units to use

• Apart from US and some UK-related articles where US or Imperial measures are used, prefer internationally accepted units. These are units of the International System of Units (SI), non-SI units accepted for use with SI, units based on fundamental constants (e.g. Planck's constant), and other units that are widely used internationally for specific purposes.
  • When English-speakers use more than one unit for a given type of measurement, it is generally advisable to add a conversion so that all English-speaking readers will be able to understand one of the units. For example, the Mississippi River has a length of 2,320 miles (3,734 km); the Murray River has a length of 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi). (See {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing below.)

This provides a rationale for the ruling, and allows for exceptions; there aren't many, but I foresee MGlass's text being used to demand conversions between calendar and tropical years, and other totally silly demands. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to go round the houses, but I don't like "Apart from US and some UK-related"... many US articles use metric units, and using exceptio probat regulam this could suggest that SI is actively discouraged in US and some (unspecified) UK articles. This just does not cut the mustard; you can't get rid of the "regional" bit altogether, ugly though it be. For a start, write "Apart from most US-related" (since some use SI etc); and indeed since it simply says "prefer" why not cut that qualifying clause and put elsewhere? Below is not perfect but an attempt to show what I mean:

Which units to use

• Prefer internationally accepted units. These are units of the International System of Units (SI), non-SI units accepted for use with SI, units based on fundamental constants (e.g. Planck's constant), and other units that are widely used internationally for specific purposes.
  • In general, add a conversion so that all English-speaking readers will be able to understand one of the units. For example, the Mississippi River has a length of 2,320 miles (3,734 km); the Murray River has a length of 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi). (See {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing below.)
• Articles about US or UK subjects should use US or Imperial measures when appropriate, with conversions to SI unless the context makes that ridiculous.
  • Take care to consider Canada and Ireland, which although largely metricated still use US or Imperial measures in some parts of daily life.

SimonTrew (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly an improvement. I would make the first sentence Wikipedia generally prefers internationally accepted units - although the phrase internationally accepted is both tendentious and incorrect; units accepted by the US and Canada, or Britain and Canada, are internationally accepted. If it is left as it is, some good soul will go through and switch George Washington to kilometers, quoting the first sentence in isolation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did consider hoisting the "Articles about US... to the top of the example (even before "prefer internationally...", possibly). I agree about "internationally" and said so in the earlier discussion, but perhaps not as clearly. I think we can cut "internationally accepted units" completely since we immediately give its definition. For the other uses of "internationally" we can say simply "worldwide" (or is that equally contentious? Surely nobody will expect penguins in Antarctica to be getting out their slide rules?)

How about this? (Again, not intended as a final suggestion more something to bite on.)

Which units to use

• Articles about people or places strongly associated with one place or time should use the units appropriate to that place or time. For the US this will generally mean US units, for the UK, sometimes Imperial units.
  • Take care to consider Canada and Ireland, which although largely metricated still use US or Imperial measures in some parts of daily life, and used non-SI units for much of their past.
• With that considered, Wikipedia prefers units of the International System of Units (SI), non-SI units accepted for use with SI, units based on fundamental constants (e.g. Planck's constant), and other units that are widely used worldwide for specific purposes.
  • In general, add a conversion so that all English-speaking readers will be able to understand one of the units. For example, the Mississippi River has a length of 2,320 miles (3,734 km); the Murray River has a length of 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi). (See {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing below.)

SimonTrew (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about

• For articles not associated with a place or time, especially scientific articles, Wikipedia normally uses units of the International System of Units (SI), non-SI units accepted for use with SI, units based on fundamental constants (e.g. Planck's constant), and other units that are widely used worldwide for some specific purpose.

which is self-contained. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I hadn't thought about the possibility of misunderstanding the phrase "internationally accepted" that way [i.e. "units accepted by the US and Canada, or Britain and Canada"]. I still find it's unlikely that a reasonable person could accidentally misunderstand it, but we'd better prevent unreasonable wiki-lawyers from purposefully misunderstand it. I still don't like the "shopping list"-like explanation, which suggests that all SI units, all units based on fundamental constants, etc. are accepted (while the megasecond isn't accepted, and the Planck mass is only accepted in advanced theoretical physics contexts). Also, I'd rather go with "parts of the English-speaking world" than with "English speakers": no conversion could make all English speakers understand a measure such as "4.7 microfarads", for there are many who don't know what electric capacitance is; but anyone who knows what it is would measure it in submultiples of the farad, regardless of where they're from; so a conversion for that measure is unnecessary and useless. Let me give a try:

----

Which units to use

• Except in the cases mentioned below, prefer the units in most widespread use worldwide. Usually, they are the units of the International System of Units (SI) and non-SI units accepted for use with SI; but there are various exceptions for some measurements, such as inches for display sizes and years for long periods of time.
  • When discussing topics strongly associated with one place or time, use the units appropriate to that place or time. In articles about the present, for the US this will usually mean United States customary units, and for the UK this generally means Imperial units for some classes of measurements and metric units for others (see, for example, the Times Online style guide under "Metric").
• When some parts of the English-speaking world would use a different unit than the one used in the article, generally add parenthetical conversions so that readers from those regions can understand the measurement: for example, the Mississippi River has a length of 2,320 miles (3,734 km); the Murray River has a length of 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi). (See {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing below.)

----

I'm not sure about "general articles"; I think clearer alternative could be found.[Edited to incorporate point made above by Trew, which I hadn't read yet.] As for cases such as kilojoules v kilocalories in Italy (and I suppose Canadians and Irishmen can find other examples of that), it says "locally used", not "locally recommended". Per WP:BEANS, let's wait until some editor cites this guideline and some obscure law requiring [kilojoules|some SI unit] in [the EU|Ireland or Canada] to replace [kilocalories|some Imperial unit] with [kilojoules|some SI unit] in an [EU|Ireland- or Canada]-related article before we explicitly make that point. --___A. di M. 14:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the general principle Simon put forth: Articles about people or places strongly associated with one place or time should use the units appropriate to that place or time. Arago used toises, and we should describe in toises - translating into meters and yards. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emended to incorporate that point. BTW, I think that "people or places" is too restrictive, as beer glass is neither a person nor a place (not in the obvious sense of "place", at least); also "articles" should be toned down, because an article discussing several topics can use different units for each one of them, as in the Irish road speed limits example (mph for historical limits, km/h for modern ones). --___A. di M.

General comments on region vs. internationally accepted

All these wordings are confusing in that they say "use", but in most cases, what is really meant is "list first", because conversions are usually provided. It would be nice to think that editors would read the manual from end to end and remember everything, but that just isn't going to happen, so wording that does not require the editor to read a different part of the manual to understand that "use" usually means "list first" would be better. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I added a sub-bullet about unit conversions to the first bullet in the "Which units to use" subsection , where there was none. --___A. di M. 15:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been a flurry of edits over the last day or so from A di M (5) Noetica (9) and GregL (6). While I know these are all good faith edits from good faith editors, it suggests to me that this has not properly achieved the consensus we should expect before changing WP:MOSNUM, where stability is incredibly important. May I suggest we hold off and perhaps use the talk page more rather than the guide itself, since a guide that is constantly changing is no use to anyone. SimonTrew (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SimonTrew, at PMAnderson' talkpage you say that I have "jumped the gun" with my editing. On the contrary: my recent edits are all like these, the most minor uncontroversial tidying. The only ones that go beyond such housekeeping are to revert PMAnderson's premature editing in response to my raising a point for discussion (see above), and a conservative clarifying response to a point raised by A di M.

Please refrain from incautious accusations. I am not disrupting anything at all, and I have explicitly called for discussion rather than hasty editing.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 14:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse you of anything. I stated my own opinion, and said as such. It is not a question of how minor the edits are: any edit to the MOS impacts, in theory, on every article in the encyclopaedia, if only in so much as now the article has to be checked again against the MOS to see if it still conforms. When I have had even a minor "housekeeping" edit (change of wording etc) I have taken it to discussion; and most of the edits are not marked as minor (so, are they minor as you claim, in which case mark them minor, or not, in which case discuss them)? I am not prepared to enter into discussion of personalities here; I am also trying to make the MOS better, because I edit articles and try to make them conforming, or at least more conforming, and continual changes to the MOS, however small, are counterproductive to that aim. Since there have been (using my above figures which are a little dated) 20 edits to MOSNUM in the last day or so, in fact more now, that averages a little under 1 change an hour. How is a poor article editor like me supposed to keep up with that? Better to get consensus for one big change, and this goes against my usual reasoning at WP:OWNFEET, because here we are not talking about an end article but something that affects millions of articles.

To repeat: I stated that I thought you had jumped the gun; I think you did. I stated it on a user's talk page which, while not private, does not oblige me to have NPOV. That is not an accusation of anything, it is my opinion. SimonTrew (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not say which edit of mine "jumps the gun". Surely not the ones in which I change the dashes and quotation marks so that they conform to MOS styling! Don't make scattershot assertions. I have responded to your comment at my talkpage. If you raise an issue, expect it to be discussed till all is clarified.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I had been away from MOSNUM for a while. While gone, there were several edits made that seemed to take MOSNUM away from the long-standing ways things have always been done on Wikipedia with regard to numbers. For the most part, these changes seem to have been the product of a tag-teaming by two like-minded editors over a period of one week. A consensus of two editors does not a consensus make. What I’ve now restored (and better organized) reflects widely observed, common practices on Wikipedia that have long enjoyed a true consensus. These time-tested practices, which were the product of much discussion over the years, are intended to yield the most important thing on Wikipedia: result in the least confusion for the greatest portion of our readership. Sometimes, editors come here to MOSNUM to change things in order to lend legitimacy to their particular way of doing things in articles they’re working. However, this is often done with an insufficient understanding of the ramifications. Greg L (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't object to the reorganization—I have no issue with moving things to different subsections for clarity. It's the reversions that I don't particularly understand

  (In the interests of disclosure, with regard to the following, it looks like Greg_L worked on the current version, and I worked on the versions that were recently reverted. It's not personal, but I do think that my edits were better.)

  It's pretty clear that the consensus (which extends far beyond MOSNUM) with respect to things like regional usage variations is to allow them in context (and the text I proposed and eventually inserted into MOSNUM on digit grouping upholds that). Furthermore, the recently-reverted section clearly articulates that there are two methods of digit grouping in standard English usage (and that neither is to be mandated exclusively), noting some contexts in which it is common to find one or the other. The previous version of that text is also clearer, because it organizes these things into bullets and uses more precision in explaining the technical details.

  With regard to another recent change—that of the reworded adoption of international standards section—I still object to the aggressiveness and essay-like qualities of the current (reverted) version. My version retains the core message that certain things (i.e. " %", "MiB") are not valid on Wikipedia despite the existence of various international standards, but avoids the repetition of "real-world" and removes the commentary about the objectives of Wikipedia. (Those things are rightly found in the policy documents and user essays, but don't need to be reinterpreted here, especially not in the context of two long-running editing disputes.)

  Besides, the consensus on Wikipedia is not that real-world usage always prevails—though it often does, justifiably—just look at the citation system for evidence of consensus in favour of an invented system not found externally. The point is that Wikipedia can choose to follow whatever the community wants, and isn't necessarily bound to the real-world norm as a matter of policy. If doing something differently makes the encylopedia better, then it's a valid course of action. But if following someone else's lead (be it BIPM or traditional American usage) leads to a better encyclopedia, then that's appropriate as well. If we want to decide what Wikipedia's broad objectives ought to be, we should discuss that at WP:VPP. TheFeds 17:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• TheFeds, I think my edit regarding the percent sign and MiB, etc., was in haste. I misunderstood the impact of your change when I was looking at the edit-diff. Looking at the actual text, I think your version was an improvement and have no objection at all if you change that section back. I would offer to do it myself, but I will give you the liberty of changing it so it is sure to meet with your satisfaction. Greg L (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. That was easy enough. I restored it to the version you made. Sorry for the inconvenience. Greg L (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Greg. I'm glad that the misunderstanding is behind us. Looks like you beat me to the change, and that section is definitely alright now. TheFeds 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually end up back where I started. I asked for a stand off of edits and to take it to talk page rather than continually change the policy article itself. I am sorry Greg L that you are offended that a mere article editor like me might have an interest in the guidelines under which he is supposed to edit articles, and impinging on your space by it not going the right way to discuss changes while you were away (and frankly it was going quite nicely, with very few edits and plenty of discussion before changes were made). As for history etc etc, well, who cares? I look at the article and see the problems NOW, not as they were seven years ago. Since 85% of my edits are in article space not WP space or template space or whatever, I just want to come here, note a problem, get consensus, etc. While it is useful (sincerely) that other kinds of WP editors take time to make sure MOS etc are correct, I simply am not going to get bound up in this, but it annoys me that it smacks of WP:OWNERSHIP almost. The veiled thing about "New editors" I assume refers to me. If it does, just say so, I can take it. I didn't realise longevity was a criterion ("take MOSNUM away from the long-standing ways things have always been done" – excuse me while I bring the boy down the chimney and teach him to type a response to that).

MOSNUM actually had a period of stability where I could actually rely on it for a bit. I think now I give up and will just stick to, say, the convert template talk where, if there are problems or additions needed for articles, User:Jimp and many other helpful folk there actually sort it out and, if us poor article editors are mistaken, kindly and politely tell us so. What is the problem here? Have I hit the nail on the head? It seems to me, right now, that there is a kinda warring faction with Greg L, Noetica and PMA some long-standing editors that none of us mere mortals are privy to, and only they have the right of an opinion on MOSNUM? Can you point me to maybe a meta-policy that says so?

Perhaps I am not in the best of moods, so for that I apologise in advance. But MOSNUM is supposed to be here to HELP PEOPLE WRITE ARTICLES, not as some navel-gazing activity. It does not help me write articles if it is constantly changing under my feet, and what in other contexts would be characterised as an edit war has taken place in the last couple of days. C'mon, folks, you are supposed to be the best of the best to edit something as crucial as this. Live up to that responsibility.

Best wishes. SimonTrew (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jc3s5h, your edits were contrary to the results of the RfC you yourself conducted here on Archive 123. The {val} template was the result of very lenghty, months-long discussions by very many editors on both WT:MOS and WT:MOSNUM.

{Val} (originally known as “Delimitnum”) had its functionality described here in WT:MOSNUM Archive 94…

…it was extensively discussed and voted upon here in WT:MOSNUM Archive 94…

…and was well received here on WT:MOS Archive 97…

…where its functionality was tweaked to achieve a compromise solution that made everyone happy on an issue regarding the look of scientific notation.

Then a number of developers and template authors worked on it.

Please don’t presume that you can come along and change it without a proper consensus. Greg L (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg L misinterprets the results of the RFC. While the Val template is generally acceptable in that it can be altered to accommodate almost any format for which there is consensus, Greg L is the only one who considers the commas-left, thin-spaces-right format to be the best choice. A few others considered it acceptable but not superior to other choices. The outcome of the discussion was to avoid the commas-left, thin-spaces-right format. Val should be modified accordingly.

I also call upon Greg L to abide by the argument he has often made with respect to binary prefixes (that is, follow external consensus rather than advocate formats that have not achieved external acceptance, and choose a format that has at least limited acceptance outside of Wikipedia to a format that has no acceptance at all outside Wikipedia. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You must not have read the links I provided, above; they show widespread, overwhelming support for {val}. The consensus (not just me) on Wikipedia is that the techniques {val} uses for scientific notation and long strings is a good one that causes zero confusion. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. But please stop trying to delete mention of it or discourage its use. It serves a valuable purpose in technical articles. Greg L (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delimiting numbers

• (no longer beating around the bush here): One source of periodic friction on MOSNUM is the delimiting of numbers. There are four or even five different ways of doing so. In Sweden, they teach school children three different methods (and two of them are “Swedish 1” and “Swedish 2”). To make a long story short: Wikipedia allows both British and American-dialect English (spelling) in its articles, so long as they are consistent within an article. However…

  This practice of “your way / my way… it’s all just six of one / half a dozen of the other” doesn’t apply to numbers. Why? Wikipedia has gone through all this before many times, and new editors who come here don’t have the benefit of all that history and discussion. But it comes down to this: English-speaking Europeans are familiar and comfortable with a many different ways of delimiting numbers and the American style causes them no confusion whatsoever. Comma-delimiting might not be the most common practice for English-speaking Europeans, but they recognize what it means and fully understand the numbers. However, Americans are familiar with one and only one method; as a group, they have had no exposure whatsoever to other ways of delimiting numbers. So, especially for general-interest articles, in order to cause the least confusion, the American method of using commas to the left of the decimal point is to be used on Wikipedia. Scientific articles; particularly ones directed to a professional readership, are the only exception.

  The argument that “Well, Wikipedia will just start using the Euro/BIPM method and dumb-ass Americans will simply learn” just doesn’t fly and it never will. Wikipedia doesn’t have that kind of influence; all that sort of attitude does is produce confusion. Our aborted attempt to push the world into the adoption of the IEC prefixes (kibibytes and KiB) amply demonstrated that. After three long years, the practice was no more well adopted throughout the world than before. All Wikipedia accomplished by letting itself by hijacked by a handful of editors who wanted to push the world into a new and brighter future with warp drive and membership in the United Federation of Planets™®© was to make our computer-related articles needlessly confusing. We follow the way the world works and can not presume to lead by example.

  We can’t have MOSNUM subtly edited in a fashion that tacitly allows numbers in articles, other than science-related ones, to be delimited with thinspaces in place of commas to the left of the decimal point; it is unnecessarily confusing to too many readers. This is the way it has long been done and there has been no decision to change the practice.

  As for delimiting with gaps to the right of the decimal point using {val} on high-precision numbers, particularly in engineering and scientific-related contexts where the distinction between numbers is important and the values actually have to be parsed and understood, that confuses absolutely no one—even “sheltered Americans”. A value like 1.6162523625×10⁻³⁵ meters is no more confusing than the decidedly non-SI-compliant, five-digit delimiting used for mathematical constants (particularly in tables of constants), such as 3.141592653589793238462643383279...; everyone instantly “gets” it. It is a much-appreciated and much-needed touch that makes long strings of digits much easier to parse. Moreover, its technique of using thinspaces to the right is the only possible method that could be employed to solve the problem of long strings without upsetting the apple cart; it was either do nothing (and have absurdly long strings that can’t easily be parsed) or utilize the only logical available technique. Greg L (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My position is that using thin spaces to both the left and right of the decimal when an article contains one or more numbers with 5 digits to the right of the decimal is preferable to Wikipedia making up its own format. It also my position that the practice of using thin spaces to the right and commas to the left looks especially asinine in the case of a number like 4,046.8564224. I will not change my position unless a reputable external source, such as a major style guide, which supports the 4,046.8564224 format, is cited. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That’s perfectly fine, Jc3s5h. Don’t write it that way then. A number like 4046.8564224 is rare anyway. With that much precision, such numbers will often be in scientific articles where scientific notation might be more appropriate. Amongst all the above-cited discussions in the archives, there was another editor who felt as you do. We go with the consensus here on Wikipedia and the approval of {val} was (very) lopsided. The guideline advising editors that numbers like 1.6162523625 × 10⁻³⁵ meters are hard to parse and they should consider using 1.6162523625×10⁻³⁵ m is a sound one because it makes Wikipedia easier to read and understand. Greg L (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you; as long as this is phrased so as to be clear that the answer to "I don't like 4,046.8564224" is "Don't use it then", not "MOS breach! MOS breach! shun this start-class article", a recommendation backed by a lopsided majority should be fine, and harmless. The present use of may be seems to achieve that, but I would value Jc3s5h's opinion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) When Pmanderson asks whether the present use of may be, I surmise he is asking about this section:

• Numbers with more than four digits to the right of the decimal point, particularly those in engineering and science where distinctions between different values are important, may be separated (delimited) into groups using the {{val}} template, which uses character-positioning techniques rather than distinct characters to form groups. Per ISO convention (observed by the NIST and the BIPM), it is customary to not leave a single digit at the end, thus the last group comprises two, three, or four digits. Accordingly, the recommended progression on Wikipedia is as follows: 1.123, 1.1234, 1.12345, 1.123456, 1.1234567, 1.12345678, 1.123456789, etc. Note that {{val}} handles these grouping details automatically; e.g. {{val|1.1234567}} generates 1.1234567 (with a four-digit group at the end). The {{val}} template can parse no more than a total of 15 significant digits in the significand. For significands longer than this, editors should delimit high-precision values using the {{gaps}} template; e.g. {{gaps|1.234|567|890|123|45}} → 1.2345678901234567.

Let us set aside my objection to the 4046.8564224 format for the moment; whether my interpretation or Greg L's interpretation of consensus prevails will become apparent in due course. The present version of the guideline states, or at least strongly implies, that the Val template conforms to "ISO convention (observed by the NIST and the BIPM)", but the template at present does not conform to the ISO convention. Furthermore, every example in this section has exactly one digit to the left of the decimal, so the non-conformance is concealed.

This is a falsehood. I don't think it has been pointed out until now, so it is an innocent falsehood. But over time, as the falsehood becomes better understood among editors of this guideline, it could ripen into a lie. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a question of fact (assertions of fact are generally undesirable on guideline pages, because it provokes exactly this sort of discussion), would both of you provide citations? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternatively, can Jc3c5h propose a text which supports the use of {{val}} - commonly but not without exception - but does not make those claims of fact?
• Is GregL willing to consider such a text? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to Pmanderson's request for a citation, the BIPM brochure setting for the International System of Units states "for numbers with many digits the digits may be divided into groups of three by a thin space, in order to facilitate reading. Neither dots nor commas are inserted in the spaces between groups of three."

As for proposing a text supporting the use of {{val}}, I don't support that template at all until it is modified to not allow commas and thin spaces in the same number. (I have no objection to a version that provides a parameter to choose between the BIPM format and the customary American format.) --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that citation does address how to handle 4 digits (make a single group of 4); but one issue between you is how to handle 8 digits. {{Val}} divides them IIUC 3, 3, and 2; what would you do, and can you cite it as ISO? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's information, I have initiated a discussion here about behavior I have witnessed since editing restrictions were lifted for parties to the delinking case. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]