This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kilowatt-hour article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It might be just me but the third example I missed the "one hour" part the first few times I read it. I only noticed it when I was about to edit it to "correct" the math and checked the footnote. So I left it as is. Perhaps it could be changed to 24h as I read it initially, or just adjusted in a way that may make things more clear? It's also entirely possible that other people don't miss that while scanning through and maybe no change is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.104.178 ( talk) 18:40, 4 December 2008
Please have a look at the International Electrotechnical Vocabular of IEC
watt hour non-SI unit of active energy: 1 Wh ≔ 3 600 J
Note 1 to entry: The multiple kilowatt hour, kWh, is commonly used for billing consumers of electric energy and is therefore indicated on electric energy meters.
ISO specifies in ISO 80000-1:2009 "Quantities and units -- Part 1: General":
7.2.4 English names of compound units In the English language, the name of the product of two units is the concatenation of the two names, separated by a space.
ISO and IEC are internationally the most relevant standard setting organisations, do you agree? -- Gunnar ( talk) 18:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Please help us improve Electropedia! If you have any comments or suggestions on Electropedia or specific terms and definitions, we want to hear from you. Please send an e-mail to terminology@iec.ch.
Regarding "name most typically used in reliable sources", if found that in the NIST Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI), 2008, page 55 "watt hour" is also written without hyphen. -- Gunnar ( talk) 18:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this is always true: "The consumption of electric vehicles is expressed in kWh/100 km". For example, the US EPA several different units, including "kW·hrs per 100 miles", but not kWh/100 km, as can be seen on the window sticker. I would suggest changing "is" to "may be". Kendall-K1 ( talk) 20:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding earlier. I just wanted to write that either 1 kWh/100 km or 1 kWh/100 miles contains kWh. It makes sense to mention the consumption of electric vehicles, here. I performed a small calculation for you. 1 kWh/100 km = 36 N or 1 kWh/100 miles = 22.37 N
Here is a European website: [1]. The consumption is given in kWh/100 km, -- JeffMik1 ( talk) 18:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
It is difficult to convince you that I'm right. Look here, please: Electric car energy efficiency The efficiency is given in kWh/100 km or in kWh100 miles. Do you agree? Thank you, -- JeffMik1 ( talk) 16:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Here is the official site of the United States Department of Energy, which is responsible for energy in the US: [3]. Here, efficiency is given in kWh/100 mile. If you prefer this unit, please replace kWh/100 km through kWh/100 mile (with the conversion factor 1 kWh/100 mile = 1.609344 kWh/100 km). Thanks, but I'm sorry. I give up, -- JeffMik1 ( talk) 19:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
In this edit, kWh was changed to kW·h, among other things. While kW·h might in principle be the most "preferred" way by SI standards, it's not at all consistent with the actual use in almost all reliable sources.
It is also one of the situations where there is no chance of misunderstandings, which is the entire reason for using "·"; metre-second has to be written m·s (or perhaps m s) so it is not mistaken for ms (millisecond). But this is not the case with kWh; there is no risk of misunderstanding.
Also, a search on Google for "kW·h" in quotes gives a meagre 38.000 results, whereas a search for "kWh" in quotes gives 96 million results. So according to Google's index, kWh is used 25,000 times as much as kW·h on the internet.
So being "consistent" with writing kW·h on Wikipedia alone, separated from almost all the rest of the world, seems close to meaningless, even close to ridiculous.
The Manual of Style for Wikipedia, in MOS:UNITNAMES, also states:
&
sdot;
or &
nbsp;
. Examples: ms = millisecond; m⋅s or m s = metre-second.So I strongly believe we should consistently use kWh (as well as Wh, Ah, MWh, GAh, GWh, etc.) and not the almost never in real life used kW·h in this article (as well as in general on Wikipedia). And I believe the Manual of Style even states that we must, which makes total sense. We can mention that according to SI, kW·h (etc.) would be more correct (if that is true), but that it is almost never used, so therefore we use kWh (etc.) on Wikipedia to be consistent with the overwhelming use in almost all publications.
-- Jhertel ( talk) 23:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Jhertel: I was just reading up on this as well. I actually think we should remove the exception in MOS:UNIT, since it makes no sense to have it be different in this case. As you said, if it exists for newton-metre and metre-second, it should exist for everything else. As for consistency with "the rest of the world" a.k.a. reliable sources, we do things "against the grain" so to speak for many other things; e.g., always use spaces to separate unit quantities and symbols, whereas many (if not most) publications don't follow this guidance from the SI. Same thing with using ′ for feet instead of ft and ″ for inches instead of in. So it's a question of where do we put our foot down, and where do we not. I think we should follow the SI in all matters related to the SI, which MOS:UNIT actually suggests in a lot of cases.
Regarding my edit, I mainly changed it in a wholesale attempt to the fix the issue of kWh being purported as a symbol, which it is not; it's an abbreviation. Since many of the templates seem to have the word "Symbol" hard-coded into them, and since it would be inconsistent to use kW·h and kWh mixed together, I ended up changing them all for consistency. I can change the instances in the prose where kW·h is used back to kWh, but I'm entirely against claiming that kWh is a symbol. Getsnoopy ( talk) 17:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The only instance of a spelling I can find that differs among varieties of English is this edit from 2010, which uses the word "centred". However, that is contained in a quote, and in quotes the spelling of the source is retained regardless of the spelling conventions of the work containing the quote. So I can find no basis rooted in spelling of words to prefer any particular variety of English.
Aside from spelling, the grammar of the article just seems more American than British to me.
Some people, including me, feel dmy dates go better with British and Oxford spelling, and mdy dates go better with American spelling. The earliest introduction of a date, precise to the day, is in this edit from 2008, by Ben MacDui which contains 9 January 2008 (I have removed date linking, which is too painful to reproduce). I do not see any discussion in the talk page or its archives about choosing a date format. Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Getsnoopy wrote above "the BIPM prescribes the spelling of the units in French primarily and English". I disagree. In the preface to the 9th edition of the SI brochure the BIPM states
Small spelling variations occur in the language of the English speaking countries (for instance, "metre" and "meter", "litre" and "liter"). In this respect, the English text presented here follows the ISO/IEC 80000 series Quantities and units. However, the symbols for SI units used in this brochure are the same in all languages.
I take this to mean
Jc3s5h ( talk) 11:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto ( talk). 20:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
In this edit, you [DeFacto] claim "say it as it is" and change it to "American English", which it clearly is not. If you don't think my change to "Oxford English" was warranted, then yours isn't in just the same light, and yours should be reverted as well to become neutral. Your behaviour has an air of what you do is always more authoritative than what others do, which is not only untrue, but disruptive.
Also, regarding I'm not going to unpick the very little that wasn't which you cn re-do
: please stop
your wholesale reverting. You're an editor; if you can't pick the changes that are relevant vs. the ones which are not, then maybe you should reconsider your role.
Getsnoopy (
talk) 17:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Reference to reverted edit.-- Robertiki ( talk) 02:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The '·' character is not that common, most don't know how it is named, and maybe neither do not know how to search about it (simply placing it in the search box does work). I think it would do no damage placing a small note about it, if anybody would like to abide to SI rules. -- Robertiki ( talk) 02:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Another editor that loves to revert without talking. Please refer to expert bias. -- Robertiki ( talk) 04:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The edit being complained about contained, and discused, "·". The first post in this thread uses the same character. But the article does not use "·", it uses "⋅". So it was completely appropriate that the edit was reverted. (I have not looked at the edit summary for the reversion and express no opinion about the edit summary.) My edit to this thread is the first post that makes any sense and the rest should be ignored. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The section with the sole statement, "By definition of the units, a consumption of 1 kWh/100 km is exactly equivalent to a resistance force...", is completely out of context with no useful exposition whatsoever. I don't see how it helps the article. There are probably many equivalents that could be drawn from dimensional analysis. kbrose ( talk) 14:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Dondervogel 2 added a "citation needed" template to the statement that "other use of terms such as "watts per hour" are likely to be errors. The edit summary was "are you sure?". Yes, I'm sure. I've done a Google search on "watts per hour" and nearly all of the instances I find are errors.
The problem is that reliable sources usually content to using terms correctly themselves. They seldom take the trouble to point out widespread misuse of terms. So I have not been able to find a reliable source that it is a widespread error to write "watts per hour" or similar phrases when "watts" is meant.
This topic was previously discussed in Talk:Kilowatt-hour/Archive 1 in several sections. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I was just searching for the term watt second assuming the SI units would be used rather than kilo-.
I eventually figured you had this under kilowatt hour. But, I was thinking if you had a search for watt second redirect to this page, it would be a lot easier to find the article if the user is unsure of what units to search for. VoidHalo ( talk) 22:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
"The use of the correct symbols for SI units, and for units in general, as listed in the earlier chapters of this brochure, is mandatory. In this way ambiguities and misunderstandings in the values of quantities are avoided." -- you can't spell "kWh" for kilowatt hour, "Wb" for watt barn, "kat" for kiloannum tonne, "Gy" for gauss year, etc. This never should have had to be a discussion especially when new units and prefixes get added. 2600:4040:208F:2A00:3FA2:818A:B558:F2A4 ( talk) 22:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Why are people removing W h multiples from disambig pages and hatnotes? 2600:4040:208F:2A00:D9B0:D4A:879E:D5C8 ( talk) 00:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kilowatt-hour article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It might be just me but the third example I missed the "one hour" part the first few times I read it. I only noticed it when I was about to edit it to "correct" the math and checked the footnote. So I left it as is. Perhaps it could be changed to 24h as I read it initially, or just adjusted in a way that may make things more clear? It's also entirely possible that other people don't miss that while scanning through and maybe no change is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.104.178 ( talk) 18:40, 4 December 2008
Please have a look at the International Electrotechnical Vocabular of IEC
watt hour non-SI unit of active energy: 1 Wh ≔ 3 600 J
Note 1 to entry: The multiple kilowatt hour, kWh, is commonly used for billing consumers of electric energy and is therefore indicated on electric energy meters.
ISO specifies in ISO 80000-1:2009 "Quantities and units -- Part 1: General":
7.2.4 English names of compound units In the English language, the name of the product of two units is the concatenation of the two names, separated by a space.
ISO and IEC are internationally the most relevant standard setting organisations, do you agree? -- Gunnar ( talk) 18:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Please help us improve Electropedia! If you have any comments or suggestions on Electropedia or specific terms and definitions, we want to hear from you. Please send an e-mail to terminology@iec.ch.
Regarding "name most typically used in reliable sources", if found that in the NIST Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI), 2008, page 55 "watt hour" is also written without hyphen. -- Gunnar ( talk) 18:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this is always true: "The consumption of electric vehicles is expressed in kWh/100 km". For example, the US EPA several different units, including "kW·hrs per 100 miles", but not kWh/100 km, as can be seen on the window sticker. I would suggest changing "is" to "may be". Kendall-K1 ( talk) 20:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding earlier. I just wanted to write that either 1 kWh/100 km or 1 kWh/100 miles contains kWh. It makes sense to mention the consumption of electric vehicles, here. I performed a small calculation for you. 1 kWh/100 km = 36 N or 1 kWh/100 miles = 22.37 N
Here is a European website: [1]. The consumption is given in kWh/100 km, -- JeffMik1 ( talk) 18:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
It is difficult to convince you that I'm right. Look here, please: Electric car energy efficiency The efficiency is given in kWh/100 km or in kWh100 miles. Do you agree? Thank you, -- JeffMik1 ( talk) 16:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Here is the official site of the United States Department of Energy, which is responsible for energy in the US: [3]. Here, efficiency is given in kWh/100 mile. If you prefer this unit, please replace kWh/100 km through kWh/100 mile (with the conversion factor 1 kWh/100 mile = 1.609344 kWh/100 km). Thanks, but I'm sorry. I give up, -- JeffMik1 ( talk) 19:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
In this edit, kWh was changed to kW·h, among other things. While kW·h might in principle be the most "preferred" way by SI standards, it's not at all consistent with the actual use in almost all reliable sources.
It is also one of the situations where there is no chance of misunderstandings, which is the entire reason for using "·"; metre-second has to be written m·s (or perhaps m s) so it is not mistaken for ms (millisecond). But this is not the case with kWh; there is no risk of misunderstanding.
Also, a search on Google for "kW·h" in quotes gives a meagre 38.000 results, whereas a search for "kWh" in quotes gives 96 million results. So according to Google's index, kWh is used 25,000 times as much as kW·h on the internet.
So being "consistent" with writing kW·h on Wikipedia alone, separated from almost all the rest of the world, seems close to meaningless, even close to ridiculous.
The Manual of Style for Wikipedia, in MOS:UNITNAMES, also states:
&
sdot;
or &
nbsp;
. Examples: ms = millisecond; m⋅s or m s = metre-second.So I strongly believe we should consistently use kWh (as well as Wh, Ah, MWh, GAh, GWh, etc.) and not the almost never in real life used kW·h in this article (as well as in general on Wikipedia). And I believe the Manual of Style even states that we must, which makes total sense. We can mention that according to SI, kW·h (etc.) would be more correct (if that is true), but that it is almost never used, so therefore we use kWh (etc.) on Wikipedia to be consistent with the overwhelming use in almost all publications.
-- Jhertel ( talk) 23:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Jhertel: I was just reading up on this as well. I actually think we should remove the exception in MOS:UNIT, since it makes no sense to have it be different in this case. As you said, if it exists for newton-metre and metre-second, it should exist for everything else. As for consistency with "the rest of the world" a.k.a. reliable sources, we do things "against the grain" so to speak for many other things; e.g., always use spaces to separate unit quantities and symbols, whereas many (if not most) publications don't follow this guidance from the SI. Same thing with using ′ for feet instead of ft and ″ for inches instead of in. So it's a question of where do we put our foot down, and where do we not. I think we should follow the SI in all matters related to the SI, which MOS:UNIT actually suggests in a lot of cases.
Regarding my edit, I mainly changed it in a wholesale attempt to the fix the issue of kWh being purported as a symbol, which it is not; it's an abbreviation. Since many of the templates seem to have the word "Symbol" hard-coded into them, and since it would be inconsistent to use kW·h and kWh mixed together, I ended up changing them all for consistency. I can change the instances in the prose where kW·h is used back to kWh, but I'm entirely against claiming that kWh is a symbol. Getsnoopy ( talk) 17:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The only instance of a spelling I can find that differs among varieties of English is this edit from 2010, which uses the word "centred". However, that is contained in a quote, and in quotes the spelling of the source is retained regardless of the spelling conventions of the work containing the quote. So I can find no basis rooted in spelling of words to prefer any particular variety of English.
Aside from spelling, the grammar of the article just seems more American than British to me.
Some people, including me, feel dmy dates go better with British and Oxford spelling, and mdy dates go better with American spelling. The earliest introduction of a date, precise to the day, is in this edit from 2008, by Ben MacDui which contains 9 January 2008 (I have removed date linking, which is too painful to reproduce). I do not see any discussion in the talk page or its archives about choosing a date format. Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Getsnoopy wrote above "the BIPM prescribes the spelling of the units in French primarily and English". I disagree. In the preface to the 9th edition of the SI brochure the BIPM states
Small spelling variations occur in the language of the English speaking countries (for instance, "metre" and "meter", "litre" and "liter"). In this respect, the English text presented here follows the ISO/IEC 80000 series Quantities and units. However, the symbols for SI units used in this brochure are the same in all languages.
I take this to mean
Jc3s5h ( talk) 11:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto ( talk). 20:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
In this edit, you [DeFacto] claim "say it as it is" and change it to "American English", which it clearly is not. If you don't think my change to "Oxford English" was warranted, then yours isn't in just the same light, and yours should be reverted as well to become neutral. Your behaviour has an air of what you do is always more authoritative than what others do, which is not only untrue, but disruptive.
Also, regarding I'm not going to unpick the very little that wasn't which you cn re-do
: please stop
your wholesale reverting. You're an editor; if you can't pick the changes that are relevant vs. the ones which are not, then maybe you should reconsider your role.
Getsnoopy (
talk) 17:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Reference to reverted edit.-- Robertiki ( talk) 02:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The '·' character is not that common, most don't know how it is named, and maybe neither do not know how to search about it (simply placing it in the search box does work). I think it would do no damage placing a small note about it, if anybody would like to abide to SI rules. -- Robertiki ( talk) 02:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Another editor that loves to revert without talking. Please refer to expert bias. -- Robertiki ( talk) 04:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The edit being complained about contained, and discused, "·". The first post in this thread uses the same character. But the article does not use "·", it uses "⋅". So it was completely appropriate that the edit was reverted. (I have not looked at the edit summary for the reversion and express no opinion about the edit summary.) My edit to this thread is the first post that makes any sense and the rest should be ignored. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The section with the sole statement, "By definition of the units, a consumption of 1 kWh/100 km is exactly equivalent to a resistance force...", is completely out of context with no useful exposition whatsoever. I don't see how it helps the article. There are probably many equivalents that could be drawn from dimensional analysis. kbrose ( talk) 14:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Dondervogel 2 added a "citation needed" template to the statement that "other use of terms such as "watts per hour" are likely to be errors. The edit summary was "are you sure?". Yes, I'm sure. I've done a Google search on "watts per hour" and nearly all of the instances I find are errors.
The problem is that reliable sources usually content to using terms correctly themselves. They seldom take the trouble to point out widespread misuse of terms. So I have not been able to find a reliable source that it is a widespread error to write "watts per hour" or similar phrases when "watts" is meant.
This topic was previously discussed in Talk:Kilowatt-hour/Archive 1 in several sections. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I was just searching for the term watt second assuming the SI units would be used rather than kilo-.
I eventually figured you had this under kilowatt hour. But, I was thinking if you had a search for watt second redirect to this page, it would be a lot easier to find the article if the user is unsure of what units to search for. VoidHalo ( talk) 22:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
"The use of the correct symbols for SI units, and for units in general, as listed in the earlier chapters of this brochure, is mandatory. In this way ambiguities and misunderstandings in the values of quantities are avoided." -- you can't spell "kWh" for kilowatt hour, "Wb" for watt barn, "kat" for kiloannum tonne, "Gy" for gauss year, etc. This never should have had to be a discussion especially when new units and prefixes get added. 2600:4040:208F:2A00:3FA2:818A:B558:F2A4 ( talk) 22:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Why are people removing W h multiples from disambig pages and hatnotes? 2600:4040:208F:2A00:D9B0:D4A:879E:D5C8 ( talk) 00:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)