![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 125 | ← | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | Archive 131 | → | Archive 135 |
In Talk:Hybrid name#Spacing or not spacing the multiplication sign I strongly advocate the format "Genus × hybrid" rather than the "Genus ×hybrid" preferred by one botany organization. I've based much of this rationale on much of what is recommended with regard to spacing by WP:MOSNUM, and will be taking this to WT:MOS for discussion. I am thinking more broadly that the highly consistent spacing advice given here can be generalized into a clear principle in WP:MOS more broadly. The super-short version is "don't squish disparate types of text together (and no, we don't care if some group off-WP does)." :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 06:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
An RFC on units on articles related to the Falkland Islands has been started here. Editors are invited to comment. Pfainuk talk 07:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
In certain cases it becomes necessary to publish special cases related to units of measure (for example, US-specific articles, UK-specific articles, scientific article etc). In order to provide transparency, especially where many groups are involved, may I suggest that the following be added as the last item in the subsection Which units to use and how to present them:
I am making this proposal because in 2009 the Falkland Islands Group agreed a consensus on units of measure which is now hidden in an archive. An article Geology of the Falkland Islands which was written by the Geology group was modified by a member of the Falkland Island Group because it did not conform to the Falkland Island Group consensus. This resulted in an edit war. Do we honestly expect members of the Geology Group to wade through Falkland Island Group, or should they be bound by such consensus? After all, the article concerned falls neatly into both groups' area of interest.
I believe that future problems of this sort can be solved by consensus of this nature being more openly published. My suggestion is to enable such open publication to take place.
Finally, should this apply only to units of measure, or to standards generally? Martinvl ( talk) 07:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia being a worldwide source of information, I propose the SI unit to be given first for any technical information, no matter where the subject of the article was designed and/or manufactured. The only exception to that rule is if the unit use internationally is not SI; for example the altitude of flight of an aircraft is measured in feet (see Ceiling_(aeronautics)), hence the use of feet primarily when speaking about the altitude of an aircraft (the wingspan though, for example, would be in meters). Xionbox ( talk) 19:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Wjemather, you have made several assertions.
Can you back up your assertions? Michael Glass ( talk) 08:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Wjemather, I asked you so substantiate your allegations. You didn't even try. Now, having failed to substantiate your allegations you have returned with threats. Your Argumentum ad baculum does not impress me. Your fear of the effect of finding authoritative information is as unfounded, as Headbomb's fear that non-SI units are about to be marginalised. Substantiating information in Wikipedia articles is not going to cause the collapse of the older measures. Michael Glass ( talk) 06:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I actually agree with wjemather that Wikipedia is not the place to campaign for the adoption of the metric system, but equally it is not the place for a diehard stand in favour of the Imperial weights and measures. Here are things that we need to do to cater for English-speaking users of Wikipedia:
When it comes to guidelines I think we need them to clear, so editors know what the rules are, and it's also handy to have procedures to deal with disagreements. It's a pity that discussion gets so heated about this issue, but that's probably a lot to do with the situation in the UK. Michael Glass ( talk) 14:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Since we can't do anything without getting bogged down in bureaucracy, here's a formal proposal to remove that useless template ({{ DocumentHistory}} and related). Alternatively, we could just send this to TfD. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The reference I used for the Erie and Kalamazoo banknote image I have on the commons, File:Erie and Kalamazoo Banknote 1853.jpg, shows how dates could be expressed in 1935. The "habitual drunkards" here may want to follow this source:
Laws of the territory of Michigan, "An act amendatory to an act concerning habitual drunkards, and to protect their estates, approved the twelfth April, eighteen hundred and twenty-seven." -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 02:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
At the moment MOSNUM deals with these two concerns in one subheading. I think it would be preferable to deal with them under two subheadings, one for which units to use and the other for how to present the units. Does anyone have any comments, suggestions or concerns about this proposal? Michael Glass ( talk) 13:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
In response to the comments and concerns expressed I agree with Xionbox that two separate sections would be clearer for readers and easier to follow. This by itself is a good reason to consider the change that I have proposed. However, I also acknowledge that I have not explained the reasons for making the changes clearly enough, and I apologise to the three other editors who couldn't see the point of making any change.
The main problem is that advice on both which units to use and how to present them are scattered. This is especially true of the advice on how to present the units. By gathering the them into the two subheadings we can appreciate the policy more clearly. The best way to demonstrate this is with the advice on how to present the units. In this case, the particular advice was spread in several sub-headings, and putting it together clarifies the policy.
I must emphasise that this is not a matter of adjusting or editing or changing the wording, it is simply to rearrange the dot points without changing them. Putting the policy advice in two headings: Which units to use and How to present the units may reveal a need for further editing but this is a separate question that can be dealt with now or later.
Here is what "How to present the units" would look like when they are gathered together:
"Which units to use" could look as it is below, which follows the order in which the dot points appear in the present policy.
Apply these guidelines when choosing the "primary" unit for a measurement:
I hope that this answers the concerns that have been expressed. However, if there are any further comments or suggestions or concerns please let me know. Michael Glass ( talk) 11:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Good point, but I think the problem here is with the expression "What units to use." The section under this heading deals with the question of what units to put first and those are the words that should be used. The reason is twofold: "put first" is accurate while "what units to use" is potentially misleading, because it can give people the impression that only metrics or only Imperial/customary units are used. As the guidelines are quite clear that both metric and the older measures are to be used in a wide variety of contexts we should be careful not to confuse the issue.
A second point is that we need the whole story in one place. The problem here is that there are too many things that should be in one place than there are places to put them together. The next best thing is to have the sections side by side, which is what would happen with these two sub-sections: What units to put first and How to present the units
Thank you for raising this point. Have you spotted any other unintended consequences that need to be dealt with? Michael Glass ( talk) 14:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
On going through the policy I noticed that several points were about scientific and technical units. I think it would be a convenience for people using the policy to have these dot points under the heading, "Scientific and technical units". The dot points are as follows:
The dot points above are literally about what units of measurement to use. This contrasts with the rest of the section, which is about which units of measurement to put first. As the rest of the dot points are about which units to put first, how they are to be set out and related questions, they would need to follow each other in sequence, so the points about scientific and technical units would have to go before or after the others. I think putting them first would be preferable. Then, any relevant dot point that followed would also apply to these points.
Once again I ask for any comments, suggestions or concerns. Michael Glass ( talk) 10:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have now moved the three dot points above into their own section. Michael Glass ( talk) 10:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Reverted. The entire topic is about which units to put first, including the parts on scientific articles. Whether they then need converting is dealt with later. Putting the detail of the rule before we put the rule is confusing and unclear. Your proposal puts the cart before the horse. As such, I oppose it. Pfainuk talk 10:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the placement was not ideal. Perhaps it would be better to leave it in its place but give it a sub-subheading. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
For people of an older generation, the excitement of Roger Bannister breaking the four minute mile is an indelible memory. However, that memory, no matter how vivid it might be, comes from the year 1954, so only people over the age of 60 would be able to remember it. Now that many English-speaking countries have abandoned the older measures for over 30 years, an explanation of the exact length of the mile is necessary. Therefore using example of the four minute mile as an expression that does not need a conversion to be applied is no longer tenable, and as the article on the Four-minute mile explains the length in metres, the example should be removed from MOSNUM. Either a more suitable expression should be substituted or the sentence could simply state:
Are there any comments, suggestions or concerns? Michael Glass ( talk) 10:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, the dot points on presenting the units are scattered. Some are in Which units to use and how to present them while others are in Unit conversions. I propose to put these dot points together under How to present these units and then put them in the policy as shown below:
Please note that NO wording of any dot point has been changed. One heading has been changed and one heading has been added. Are there any comments, questions or concerns? Michael Glass ( talk) 02:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll illustrate with an example:
This has the following advantages over the SI v. IEC debate:
You might argue this violates the "no original work" ethic, but it strikes me as more of a copy-editing decision than anything particularly novel.
FWIW, I'm in the binary camp. I could live with this.
Jeberle ( talk) 07:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the Dates of birth and death section, this has probably been discussed but cannot easily find it in the archives. The issue is that I have been working on some biography articles, many that have little or no separate lead section. I generally convert thing like "John Doe (January 2, 1921 Fargo, North Dakota – February 3, 1999)" into instead "John Doe (1921–1999)" in the lead, with a body sentence that says "John Doe was born January 2, 1921 in Fargo, North Dakota", and spelling out the full date in the infobox, but been reverted. My thinking that the exact day the person was born is generally not an important enough detail to go in the lead. It just seems too redundant to have the full date appear in three places (lead, infobox, first sentence in body) right net to each other - that twice should suffice. The vital years make sense, because many people have the same name. Distinguishing them from other (often namesakes in the same family or field) is imporant, but the years suffice for that in almost every case. The current rule mandates the entire date be spelled out every time, which does not match many articles. It also is inconsistent with the rules for lead sections, which states "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic" therefore I would propose that it be at the editors discretion to allow years only the lead if the exact days of the year are not notable. The Biography MOS has at least one example using the year only. Maybe the Bio MOS is where this discussion or rule belongs? W Nowicki ( talk) 19:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Why? The burden of proof seems to be on those who claim an exception to the guidelines on lead sections. The lead (especially first sentence) should just give a very quick way to verify that this article matches the topic (person) a reader is looking for. To clarify, I would advocate allowing both styles, consistent with current practice and the lead section rule. Say, a long article with the vital details buried deep inside it might make sense to have them three places, or a very short one with them only in the lead and infobox. But repeating details thrice in a moderate sized article seems like undue weight. I have seen both styles in printed encyclopediae. W Nowicki ( talk) 18:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, MOSNUM refers to the Times Style Guide to illustrate British usage of metric and other measures. However, other UK style guides such as the Guardian Style Guide and the Economist Style Guide appear to rank more highly than the Times Style Guide in a Google search.
I believe that several guides should be noted because they have some quite notable variations, with the Economist Style Guide < http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=738514> being most in favour of metrics, followed by the Guardian, < http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/m> and with the Times style guide < http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and_services/specials/style_guide/article986731.ece> standing out as the most conservative of the three.
It is not neutral to link only to the most conservative of the newspapers; links to all three style guides would give readers access to a broader spectrum of authoritative views on British usage. I propose to add links to the Guardian and the Economist guides.
Are there any comments, suggestions or criticisms about such a change? Michael Glass ( talk) 10:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk has exploded like Colonel Blimp! How dare I quote anything other than the Times! It just goes to show what a scurrilous person I must be! I referred to The Observer! I noted the opinion of The Economist! I dared look at something other than The Times!!!
I believe that when we seek evidence of British usage, we quote several authorities, even if they are slightly different. By that means we can get a truer picture of the range of opinion in the British public, and not just its most conservative manifestation.
Pfainuk, your argumentum ad baculum is not a reasoned reply. This is not about metrication or non metrication but about linking the policy to one style manual as an example or more than one. This is the kind of thing I am suggesting.
Nothing here to scare anybody, just links to several style guides. Michael Glass ( talk) 12:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for all those comments on my proposal. A di M's revision is certainly an improvement and I welcome it. I'd just like to make the following observations:
However, A di M's revision has improved matters. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk, I accept your suggestion, but not the defective wording that Wjemather restored to the text. I've revised the text, using your wording and tightening the end of the sentence. Michael Glass ( talk)
A.di M., have a look at the text at the moment. I hope that you find it more satisfactory. Michael Glass ( talk) 08:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The following two dot points are in [ Unit Conversions].
I think they would be better placed immediately following the dot points about presentation of units in [ |Which units to use and how to present them].
I propose moving them to this location.
Are there any comments, suggestions or concerns about this proposal? Michael Glass ( talk) 03:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Templates like {{ start date}} and {{ start date and age}} have MD,Y date format by default which is actually used only in the United States and Canada. Since Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, I suggest the default format should be DMY. Artem Karimov ( talk | edits) 11:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I changed the use of UK pints in respect of milk to bottled milk on grounds that milk is usually sold in the supermarkets in 1, 2, 4 and 6 pint containers, but farmers subsidies are calculated per litre. Martinvl ( talk) 07:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The guidelines rightly say to write approximately in full and not to write approx. However, there is a shorter, better word: about. I think the Manual of Style could suggest using about instead of approximately, perhaps like this:
What do others think? Michael Glass ( talk) 06:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Two other dot points in "Unit Conversions" would be better placed with the other points on presentation of units. They are these two:
I propose to move these two dot points. Are there any comments on this proposal? Michael Glass ( talk) 00:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The process of metrication has resulted in many units, such as the furlong, yard, foot (length), inch, and pound (mass) falling out of use in countries other than the United States. More precisely, these units have fallen out of use in law and commerce because for the most part, they are not allowed on the labels of goods being sold and not used in statutes or regulations; it is difficult to judge the extent they are still used in general oral conversation. Since these units are still widely used in law and commerce in the United States and are less-used elsewhere, should we use US spelling (including "meter" rather than "metre"), date format, etc. in these articles about these units? Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Moonraker asked "How will that time be identified, please?" I would say the time has arrived for furlong, foot, inch, and pound (mass). Yard and mile are not so clear; yard is still used on UK road signs and in association football (or so I'm told; I haven't been to the UK since 1970 and don't follow either kind of football). Miles are still used on UK road signs. In my view, when the unit becomes unusual in current written sources that are writing about the present day rather than historical events, and which are not writing about the US, then the unit is much more strongly associated with the US than elsewhere and if an article about the unit exits, it should use the US variety of English. The written sources to be considered should include product labels. Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I have not looked into the other articles mentioned above but I would claim that furlong passes MOS:TIES An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation. Because while this is a well known unit of measure to the general public in the UK it is virtually unheard of in the united states. Not only that the first major edit to was it in British English on 17:49, 8 June 2004. We should stick with WP:RETAIN if MOS:TIES is in dispute as it has resolved many disagreements in wikipedia such as "Gasoline" → "Petrol". -- Phoenix ( talk) 03:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The section headed "Which units to use and how to present them" has two groups of dot points. The first group deals with which units to put first; the second group deals with how to present the units. Dealing with these two issues under one subheading is not as clear as it could be. I therefore propose to add a sub-subheading entitled How to present the units and to change the existing subheading to Which units to put first.
The reasons for this are:
In addition
Are there any comments, suggestions or concerns about this proposal? Michael Glass ( talk) 01:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I've made several changes as follows:
I hope that these revisions are helpful. Michael Glass ( talk) 03:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page is currently undergoing a review to ensure it forms a relevant and effective part of the Manual of Style. Please add review comments below along with notes of any improvement actions taken during the review.
Why use three words when two words would do? I propose that we change the names to Style Manual. Michael Glass ( talk) 23:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Questions which may highlight issues. Does this page fulfil a recognized and necessary role within the MoS? Is there a role conflict with any other MoS page?
Questions which may highlight issues. Does this page have a clear identity in relation to other MoS pages? While a reader is obtaining guidance from this page, is it clear to the reader where to go for more general, and more specific, guidance related to its topic?
Questions which may highlight issues. Is the prose clear and concise? Does the guidance given reflect consensus?
Questions which may highlight issues. Is this page too large to be manageable, or too small to be meaningful as a page in its own right? Should it be restructured? Should it be merged with another page?
Questions which may highlight issues. Is any detail here also present on any other MoS page? Are the two in step? Should the detail be confined to one place, and only summarized at the other? Should transclusion be considered?
It would be good to examine the wording of both MOS and MOSNUM in detail and choose the better wording where they differ. Despite their great similarity there are some differences, and some are significant. Michael Glass ( talk) 12:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
What in the world is going here? We don't need yet another unclear and convoluted attempt at some kind of unneeded and uncessary reform, with template clutter on top of that! I won't archive this, but I'm removing that horrifying banner. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
They're indented individually. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I have created Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles)#List of date formats used. I don't have access to the CP style guide but references seems to imply that it is Month Date, Year for long date format and mm/dd/yyyy for short date. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This review has been open for a couple of weeks now, and has generated discussion of a number of areas. There are issues of duplication of detail between this page and other MoS pages; consensus was achieved to remove this duplication in one area, and this has been done. If anyone wishes to make further specific proposals as part of this review, or respond further to existing points, please do so now. Once this review is archived, please re-raise any unresolved matters as and when required, either on this talk page or the main MoS one as appropriate. PL290 ( talk) 21:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, the policy refers to the US, the UK and Commonwealth countries. I think it would be better to give guidance more generally, Unfortunately, a previous proposal [3] got no-where, but I still want to work out a wording that would be generally acceptable.
The present wording reads:
I would like to suggest the following revision:
My reasons are as follows:
Other points are as follows:
I hope that this time we will be able to come up with wording that reflects the world-wide nature of the encyclopedia while continuing to give the respect that is due to local usage. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Matters of style would rightly apply to all articles. In this particular case the guidelines cover articles on the US, the UK and Commonwealth countries but fail to cover other countries. We therefore have the anomalous situation where there is policy for
and so on.
My proposed change is designed to remedy this anomaly. It does not affect what the guidelines say about the US and the Commonwealth, but it extends this policy to other countries who do not happen to be covered at the moment. Then policy would cover all countries (almost 200) and not just the 55 countries that are covered at present.
I hope that this answers the concerns that have been expressed. Michael Glass ( talk) 04:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
In that case the entire clause about Commonwealth countries is redundant and should be removed. Having it remain there is just misleading. Would anyone have any objections if I removed it? 122.106.23.32 ( talk) 10:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I revoked the changes to the MoS because I do not think that the question of “most appropriate” or “most widely used” has been thought through carefully enough.
Firstly, Wikipedia is written for the benefit of its readers, not for the benefit of the residents of the area that is being described. If the units of measure used in the literature correspond to the expectation of the readers, then there will be no problem. If however this expectation does not hold, then the issue needs to be resolved. One of the aims of the MoS is to resolve this problem.
The English language version of Wikipedia is not only read by people whose native tuonge is English, but also by people for whom English is a second language, but who prefer to read the English language version because it is more comprehensive.
If an article describes the locality in general terms, then it is probable that the residents of that area would form the majority of the readers. This is almost certainly true of the United States and of the United Kingdom, but is probably not true of some remote islands. For example, Gough Island has a typical resident population of six – South African meteorologists - yet it get over 100 hits a day. In the case of Gough Island, the readers are almost certainly not the residents. Another example worth considering is Ulan Bator. Although the city has over a million residents and appears in Wikipedia in a large number of languages, the English language version appears to be the most comprehensive. Thus I would assume that a significant number of readers of that article would be readers for whom English is a second language.
I think that these example show that although the units of measure used in a locality might be the appropriate ones to use in a Wikipedia article, this is not always the case. For this reason I argue that the words “most appropriate” should be used rather than “most widely used”. The principal measure of “appropriateness” would be made by consulting the literature relating to the subject and deviating only if there is a good case to do so. Martinvl ( talk) 15:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The Units of Measurement sections of MOS and MOSNUM are largely, but not completely identical in layout and wording. In many cases, MOSNUM is better but in some cases MOS has the better wording. One example is in the introduction. MOSNUM's wording is brief but cryptic whereas MOS's wording is longer but clearer, and better in getting the message across.
MOSNUM: If there is trouble balancing these bullets, consult other editors through the talk page and try to reach consensus.
MOS: In instances where these principles appear to conflict with one another, consult other editors on the article's talk page and try to reach consensus.
As the Manual of Style version is clearer and much easier to follow I propose to bring the wording over into MOSNUM. Any comments, suggestions or concerns? Michael Glass ( talk) 05:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The previous discussion evidently was deemed cold by the archive bot. So I propose to edit as we seemed to roughly agree, and then perhaps add more clarification in the BIO MOS. That is, allow (1999–2222) or (January 1, 1999 – December 22, 2222) depending on if the full dates vs. years are relevant and not redundant. W Nowicki ( talk) 20:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
MOS gives the following advice on avoiding unnecessary vagueness:
Use accurate measurements whenever possible.
Vague | Precise |
---|---|
The wallaby is small. | The average male wallaby is 1.6 metres (63 in) from head to tail. |
Prochlorococcus marinus is a tiny cyanobacterium. | The cyanobacterium Prochlorococcus marinus is 0.5 to 0.8 micrometres across. |
The large oil spill stretched a long way down the Alaskan coast. | The oil spill that drifted down the Alaskan coast was 3 statute miles (5 km) long and 1,000 feet (300 m) wide. |
Is this worth reproducing in MOSNUM? Michael Glass ( talk) 13:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I apologize if this has been discussed before, but I have been searching through guides and talk page archives for an answer to my question and to tell you the truth I am not about to go through pages upon pages of MoS holy wars to answer a simple question. Was consensus ever reached on whether the YYYY-MM-DD format is allowed in citations or not? I need to know whether I'm about to head over to Google and start a mass conversion of citation dates. Thanks to whoever can help me out. — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 18:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The words "lakh" and "crore" appear quite often in articles about Indian related subjects. As a non-Indian I find it impedes understanding when I read sentences such as: "Since liberalization, the value of India's international trade has become more broad-based and has risen to Rs. 63,080,109 crores in 2003–04 from Rs.1,250 crores in 1950–51." (quoted from Economy of India). I think use of these (non universal English) terms should be discouraged. I'm fairly sure Indians who are fluent in English are quite familiar with "thousand", "hundred thousand" and "million". Roger ( talk) 17:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to drop a note about this discussion on the India WikiProject's talk page, we could do with participation from them. Roger ( talk) 11:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
There are two reasonable choices - a) links for Lakh and Crore b) using parenthesis. Personally i prefer parenthesis. Using both lakhs and millions might be a little inconvenient for the writer but it is best option to satisfy both Indian and non-Indian readers. Most Indian English readers dont use million/billion yet (i still get hopelessly confused trying a mental conversion)-- Sodabottle ( talk) 12:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
BTW, searching the archives through the box at the top of this talkpage for "lakh crore" turned out several past discussions on this, the most recent one being /Archive 122#WP:ENGVAR and Indian number format (lakh/crore) from April 2009. ― A._di_M. 3nd Dramaout (formerly Army1987) 10:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Roger. It seems to me that "lakh" and "crore" are local terms for words that are already established in English. The fact this locale has one billion people does mean it is equally recognized in other locations. Linking is fine, but why link when there are proper terms in English. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
INRConvert|400|c|0}}
)group="Note"
, if anything). Also, while the {{ChineseText}} template box looks decent, current use of those boxes implies a technical issue with page rendering, rather than a comprehension issue. I don't think we should confuse things by introducing an alternative meaning for those boxes.I've added a bullet point to the MOS on this topic, which I believe does a credible job of capturing the consensus here. One minor note: I chose to follow WP:ITALICS and didn't italicize the loanwords lakh and crore—that's a bit divergent from our usage above, but seems justified. TheFeds 03:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The MOS:NUM#Unnecessary vagueness section has a duplicate section near the bottom of the page. They don't match exactly. The first one is red and green, and the second one has an extra example (search for "Malibu"). So which duplicate do you want to keep? Art LaPella ( talk) 00:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, I added a {{ DocumentHistory}} template to this page when interest was expressed in the idea that we should begin to keep track of the status of MoS documents in this way. I did so after this initiative by another editor was welcomed at the main MoS talk page, but unfortunately, User:Headbomb has taken against the template and has now reverted my edit several times, so that despite some support for using it, it is now gone again from this page. No objections to the template have been expressed by any others. Contributions are now sought to the discussion on the main MoS talk page about whether to continue the use of this template in MoS pages. PL290 ( talk) 07:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
For the disambiguation part (ie. writing out 5MiB as 5×1024² bytes) does the MOS mean to do it for EVERYTHING (eg. computer specifications, games system requirments, etc.) or only when there's an ambiguity? Adding (xx×1024^x bytes) after everything seems very tedious and redundant to me, and infers a false sense of accuracy when there might not be (eg. system requirements). -- antilived T | C | G 05:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The text of this article mentions "eighth of a millimetre". My unerstanding is that vulgar fractions should not be used with metric units. I propose therefore to replace "millimetre" with "inch" in this example and to add an additional bullet point:
References
Martinvl ( talk) 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
We should not require that metric units always be expressed as decimals. The citations given by Martinvl are confined to the realm of consumer goods, where the goal is to allow the consumer to compare various packages. Decimal values are certainly superior for that purpose. However, we may sometimes have to write about nominal design values that may be vulgar fractions. For example, if a certain circuit board process required as many contacts as possible in 1 mm, and the designers found the maximum possible was 3, then the contact pitch would be 1/3 mm.
If it was a good idea to require values to always be expressed as decimals, BIPM would have said so. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The current text is missing a parenthesis. I propose the more active phrasing:
I don't see any need for this "rule" to be applied so broadly. What is wrong with saying "Mature oompaloompa trees are between 21/2 and 31/2 metres tall" or "Vehicles heavier than 121/2 tonnes require special permission to enter the city"? The trade regulations of one country are not a sufficient basis for an entry in the MoS - WP is not a business website selling goods to UK citizens. Roger ( talk) 19:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Roger deleted my "tongue in cheek" comment as rubbish. [4] That may be, but that term could apply to half of what is covered on the MOSNUM talk page. People are dueling to the death over a half-liter bottle of Coke or how to report the temperature in the Falklands (or something like that.) The only thing that prevents these disputes from escalating to atomic warfare is that would cause a nuclear winter and we could not decide what months are in winter. So I ask again, is the term "half-assed" a vulgar fraction? -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 21:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
There seems to me to be an ambiguity with scientific notation. The section states
However, it does not then state whether it is allowed for the leading digit to be zero.
I could argue that the same ambiguity arises with engineering notation, but there I think it is less pronounced, because it seems less likely an editor would increase or decrease the exponent by a factor of a thousand simply to force or avoid a leading zero. Si Trew ( talk) 13:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It is proposed that the article WP:FALKLANDSUNITS be merged into WP:MOSNUM.
The reasons for this are:
This raises the question, “Does a small archipelago which is home to fewer than 0.001% of the world’s English-speaking population warrant its own rules regarding units of measure?” I cannot see any good reason. The solution as I see it is to merge the existing artilce into the article WP:MOSNUM. The only question is how the merger should be done?
My proposal is that this be accomplished by:
Martinvl ( talk) 19:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
IMO, having WP:MOSNUM spend two kilobytes of words about said archipelago would be even weirder, by far. ― A._di_M. 3rd Dramaout (formerly Army1987) 23:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I should like to add that I object very strongly to Martinvl's canvassing. His choice of locations to canvass is in violation of WP:CANVASS rules against votestacking, in that he notified users individually who support his position in the Falklands units dispute, but not users who oppose his position. Pfainuk talk 20:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Reject Proposal I'm tired of this utterly lame dispute. We have two editors who have zero interest in the project work on the Falklands, who hijacked our attempt to improve the articles on our watchlists with their crusade to metricate Wikipedia. They will accept nothing less that full metrication and contrive various ruses to do so. Every 3 - 4 weeks we have yet another proposal to metricate in complete contempt of other users opinions. This needa an RFC on user conduct not more time wasting. Justin talk 20:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk, the fact that you won't agree to changing even the weather data demonstrates that you had no intention of changing anything at any time if you could help it. Proposing to change the weather data was far less than what you proposed, and was a gigantic concession. You were not prepared to go even that far. This makes a mockery of your claim of having compromised. There is no more to be said here. Michael Glass ( talk) 22:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk, that's a lie. I asked for a change to the weather data. You refused. The rest is spin. Michael Glass ( talk) 02:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
This thread has got bogged down in personal attacks. In order to get the discussion back on topic, I have some observations:
The reason the geology article doesn't follow WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is because WP:FALKLANDSUNITS doesn't have consensus at present. If and when it gets consensus, the geology article is one of those that will change. I maintain my objection to this notion that we should delete a perfectly reasonable standing proposal. It is unnecessary and needlessly provocative.
I also note, with slight bemusement at finding myself on the other side of the argument, that the proposed text does not necessarily fairly reflect actual usage in all BOTs. The British Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus (which between them form one of the British Overseas Territories) follow, insofar as it is practical, Cypriot law. Almost all permanent residents are Cypriots as the British are barred by treaty from using the bases for non-military purposes. I can't comment from experience, but I would imagine that local usage is metric-first in practically all situations that are likely to occur in articles on the subject. Why should they used a mixed system? I believe that Gibraltar also uses the metric system to a greater extent than the UK proper: distances and speeds along Gibraltar roads are measured in kilometres and kilometres per hour, for example. The situation is more complicated than that line would suggest.
As to the relationship with WP:MOSNUM? Well, I'm sure we can agree some appropriate means of doing this without deleting the proposal. It's just that this is the first time that this has been brought up. The proposal is not intended to be subordinate to WP:UNITS but rather complimentary to it. I have edited it to more clearly reflect this, and I hope that the current version can get consensus. Pfainuk talk 18:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Although I am still unhappy with many aspects of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS, I believe it best that these be remedied by the Falkland Islands Group. I therefore withdraw my proposal to merge the two articles. I have however amended the opening paragraph of the article WP:FALKLANDSUNITS to read Since the Falkland Islands follow British practice in respect of units of mesaure, Falkland Island articles should do likewise which I believe captures the spirit of both articles. Martinvl ( talk) 10:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:SEASON redirects to a section that discourages the use of seasons as dates except where there is a logical connection. There is another usage of seasons in articles which is entirely appropriate: the natural world, such as the cultivation of plants and the like. Here we sometimes see the reverse mistake being made, where people assume that seasons always occur in specific months. One example would be assuming that crocuses (an autumn-flowering plant) always bloom around October, and stating "October" in the article instead of "autumn". This kind of mistake can be quite subtle, such as this text from an old version of Pedunculate Oak [ here]: Flowering takes place in mid spring, and their fruit, called acorns, ripen by autumn of the same year. Do you see it? It assumes that spring precedes autumn in a calendar year, which is impossible in the Gregorian calendar in the southern hemisphere.
I think we need to expand the guidelines for WP:SEASON a bit. In particular, we need to clarify the situations where seasons are preferred, and mention that seasons and dates are not generally interchangeable. We could do this by adding another whole paragraph, but I think a small clarification and adding one or two more succinct examples may suffice. The only example of the logical connection for seasons mentions "the autumn harvest" which is a bit human-centric. Perhaps we can add as another example something like "apple trees blossom in spring" as an example of seasons in the natural world.
My recommended changes to WP:SEASON:
These small amendments may be necessary for those times when people visit WP:SEASON in the context of seasons in the natural world, but instead find discussions about calendar dates. -- B.D.Mills ( T, C) 12:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It should make clear that the seasons cannot be used as dates because they are reversed in the southern hemisphere, and the tropics have different seasons than the temperate zones (i.e. a wet season and a dry season). However, while seasons cannot be used globally for dating things, they have legitimate uses, as in saying " Apple trees bloom in the spring". However, if editors say "Apple trees bloom in the spring", they should be aware that they are implying that they bloom from September 21 to December 21 in the southern hemisphere. (Interestingly, the article says that if grown in Ecuador, which is in the tropics, they bloom twice a year.) RockyMtnGuy ( talk) 21:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I posit that "Pferdestärke" or PS as a unit of power has no place in common use on the English Wikipedia. It merely breeds confusion over power units as a unit that obsolete, non-SI and exceedingly rarely used in the majority of English-speaking countries. It is a leftover of history that is noteworthy for its existence, and still useful in those locales and languages in which is it lingua franca, but its presence in the English Wikipedia serves only to engender confusion. I don't advocate its complete removal- in cases where the PS measurement was significant to some issue or another, I feel that it could remain in use- but it should never be used as a unit of preference. I have found in the past that the state of power unit usage on the English Wikipedia is quite confused- with instances of each of the common units (HP, kW, PS) being used alone and also with a conversion, none of which was consistent. I propose that we make a standard policy for listing power which would be either "XX HP (YY kW)" or "XX kW (YY HP)" which does not allow the use of PS as a standard unit of measurement unless the context of the article makes it necessary in order for the rest of the article to make sense. Phasmatisnox ( talk) 18:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
So you don't care what advertisers do and you don't care if our information has no relationship on the advertising material that readers see. I understand that the measure has been replaced. So have pounds in Canada. In fact that was more than thirty years ago. However you still see grocers advertising their produce in price per pound. People who have never been taught the imperial system of weights still shop this way. I would say that as long as it's not the primary measure and that another measure is also listed that PS is fine. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that the current layout of the Units of Measurement section is a little untidy, particularly the phrase which reads "Except in the cases mentioned below, put ...". I propose that this section be re-arranged as shown here. This proposal has some minor changes to the headings, but does not change any text (apart from changing the word "below" to "above" to reflect some text being moved).
One of the areas in this section that needs to be looked at is whether the section on scientific and technical terms needs to be broken into two sections. I think that the new layout will simplify such a break-up should it be required, with the new section on technical units coming ahead of the heading "Default case". Furthermore, if other special cases need to be considered in this section they can be slotted into the list in the same way.
Even if new sections are not added, I think that this is a tidier way of presenting the information. Martinvl ( talk) 11:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I've opened an RfC on what to do with the date formatting across the entire series of biographies on Canada's governors general: Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#RfC on date format for GG bios. Input is requested so as to bring this issue to a resolution. Cheers. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion if acre-foot should be used or not as a unit to measure the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Some guidelines could be useful. Beagel ( talk) 08:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I should assume the following are correct with regard to the spacing of n-dashes?
I personally figured spaces might avoid confusion in the latter case, but something on the MOSNUM page to said effect would be helpful. ― cobaltcigs 10:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
bibleref}}
and {{
bibleref2}}
so to standardise them.Come to think of it I see no guidance with regard to time ranges either.
The first style (with 10–11 directly adjacent) seems undesirable, to me at least. ― cobaltcigs 00:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
In a book I was reading about the lead-up to the First World War, the term "the 1900s" appeared. They meant 1900-1909, not 1900-1999. There needs to be a term for the first decade of a century (the term "the oughties" that I've heard is mere silliness). In the conventional sense, we have just passed the first decade of the twenty-first century, and some standardized term needs to be used such a first decade. It used to be that the term for the century was used, but it seems that the phrase using the plural of the first year in the conventional sense appeared because it seemed that the general public was dumbed-down and couldn't handle that the term "Twentieth Century" referred to the years that began with 19. 4.154.251.243 ( talk) 23:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
In the example provided here:
Month before day: February 14 and February 14, 1990 (comma required)
This means that a comma around the year is required, is this correct? Example: On February 14, 1990, ...
Thanks, Davtra ( talk) 05:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The example ends at "1990", so the guideline says nothing about what character should follow the "0". Normal American English usage would consider all of the following to be correct:
As another angle which may shed light, remember that these are not comma pairs per se; the comma after the 14 is because of US date formatting (February 14, 1990). With UK date formatting (14 February 1990) there is no comma. (See WP:DATESNO.) Any comma after the year should be considered in its own right. PL290 ( talk)
The phrase “held February 14, 1990”, being of parenthetical import, should have a comma both before and after it, or in neither place. ― cobaltcigs 18:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
On several occasions I've wanted to ask something about the widely used and many variants of Template:Geobox. Unfortunately, the template is protected and discussions about it are scattered across many articles and projects. I've just come across Kern River which currently gives a flow of "47,000 cu ft/s (1,330.89 m3/s)". The conversion seems to be coded into the protected template. The original value of 2 signicant figures has been converted into 6 significant figures. I think the template has been over-engineered and has lost the simplicity and universal editability that is at the heart of Wikipedia. How do you change the template? Lightmouse ( talk) 11:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This came up as I was doing the GA review at Number.
The MoS (in WP:MOSNUM) tells us to write fractions "in fractional form", but we're not told what that is. In the section "fraction", we are told we can (not that we must, of course), use {{
frac}}
and are given an example for common fractions.
But we are not told what "fractional form" is and we have to guess. I think this needs to be defined. I think this is important, because for example at
Number fractions (not in <math>
sections) were written as a/b, and it could well be argued that is "fractional form" but I don't think that's the intention of the MoS. I think somewhere else in the maze that is MoS there is a more specific definition, because I am pretty sure it's encouraged to use the form that {{frac}}
supplies, i.e. superscript-oblique-supscript, and somewhere there's an discouragement from using the characters ¼, ¾ and so on. (I believe using ⁄ might also help those using non-graphic user agents such as browsers for the blind.)
So I think a strict definition of "fractional form" is needed. I would suggest as a draft definition:
<sup>
tag), the denominator in subscript text (using the <sub>
tag), and a normal-sized oblique bar (/) between them. There should be no spaces between these three parts.I note also the section "fractions" says how to write out "common fractions" without defining what they are. Since in maths text typically fractions are algebraic, e.g. in Number they are like a⁄b, these are not common fractions in the arithmetical sense. So, there's no advice on how to write out fractions that are not common fractions at all.
On that article, I have (I hope) used common sense and changed the fractions to use {{frac}}
, in the absense of anything on the talk page suggesting that there is any consensus for them to be otherwise. However, there is a good case in articles like this to use "a/b" to show the implied division – something this article actually is a bit woolly about, since it seems to flick between using "rational number" and "fraction" interchangeably, which I don't think is a good thing for an article trying to pin down definitions.
As always, I should appreciated your views. Si Trew ( talk) 10:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
{{frac}}
is OK but should not make the implementation the specification. As far as I know, MOSNUM never mentions {{
convert}}
at all, for example. There are other places in the MoS that effectively define templates as the specification, but I think it is a bad idea: any conforming implementation (article or template) can be used instead.
Si Trew (
talk)
10:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC){{
frac}}
is available. (There is also an error in the copy/paste information: ((frac|N|p|q}} ({{
frac|N|p|q}}
) pastes as:
Fractions#Writing fractions may be of help; it also has a source. There are several ways to write fractions; most of them exist because they are useful in different circumstances: but 347/999 is a natural distinction, which really should be left to editorial discretion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear friends, I note that the changes made to the MoS guidelines on currency have brought that page and MOSNUM further out of line with each other. I wonder whether editors here would mind comparing the two, and negotiating parallel changes at MOSNUM. Tony (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The layout of WP:SEASON and surrounding paragraphs is messed up in my browser, with the text at the left margin and the bullet point located above the word "Seasons". Does anyone else see this? Ucucha 16:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 125 | ← | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | Archive 131 | → | Archive 135 |
In Talk:Hybrid name#Spacing or not spacing the multiplication sign I strongly advocate the format "Genus × hybrid" rather than the "Genus ×hybrid" preferred by one botany organization. I've based much of this rationale on much of what is recommended with regard to spacing by WP:MOSNUM, and will be taking this to WT:MOS for discussion. I am thinking more broadly that the highly consistent spacing advice given here can be generalized into a clear principle in WP:MOS more broadly. The super-short version is "don't squish disparate types of text together (and no, we don't care if some group off-WP does)." :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 06:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
An RFC on units on articles related to the Falkland Islands has been started here. Editors are invited to comment. Pfainuk talk 07:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
In certain cases it becomes necessary to publish special cases related to units of measure (for example, US-specific articles, UK-specific articles, scientific article etc). In order to provide transparency, especially where many groups are involved, may I suggest that the following be added as the last item in the subsection Which units to use and how to present them:
I am making this proposal because in 2009 the Falkland Islands Group agreed a consensus on units of measure which is now hidden in an archive. An article Geology of the Falkland Islands which was written by the Geology group was modified by a member of the Falkland Island Group because it did not conform to the Falkland Island Group consensus. This resulted in an edit war. Do we honestly expect members of the Geology Group to wade through Falkland Island Group, or should they be bound by such consensus? After all, the article concerned falls neatly into both groups' area of interest.
I believe that future problems of this sort can be solved by consensus of this nature being more openly published. My suggestion is to enable such open publication to take place.
Finally, should this apply only to units of measure, or to standards generally? Martinvl ( talk) 07:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia being a worldwide source of information, I propose the SI unit to be given first for any technical information, no matter where the subject of the article was designed and/or manufactured. The only exception to that rule is if the unit use internationally is not SI; for example the altitude of flight of an aircraft is measured in feet (see Ceiling_(aeronautics)), hence the use of feet primarily when speaking about the altitude of an aircraft (the wingspan though, for example, would be in meters). Xionbox ( talk) 19:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Wjemather, you have made several assertions.
Can you back up your assertions? Michael Glass ( talk) 08:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Wjemather, I asked you so substantiate your allegations. You didn't even try. Now, having failed to substantiate your allegations you have returned with threats. Your Argumentum ad baculum does not impress me. Your fear of the effect of finding authoritative information is as unfounded, as Headbomb's fear that non-SI units are about to be marginalised. Substantiating information in Wikipedia articles is not going to cause the collapse of the older measures. Michael Glass ( talk) 06:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I actually agree with wjemather that Wikipedia is not the place to campaign for the adoption of the metric system, but equally it is not the place for a diehard stand in favour of the Imperial weights and measures. Here are things that we need to do to cater for English-speaking users of Wikipedia:
When it comes to guidelines I think we need them to clear, so editors know what the rules are, and it's also handy to have procedures to deal with disagreements. It's a pity that discussion gets so heated about this issue, but that's probably a lot to do with the situation in the UK. Michael Glass ( talk) 14:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Since we can't do anything without getting bogged down in bureaucracy, here's a formal proposal to remove that useless template ({{ DocumentHistory}} and related). Alternatively, we could just send this to TfD. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The reference I used for the Erie and Kalamazoo banknote image I have on the commons, File:Erie and Kalamazoo Banknote 1853.jpg, shows how dates could be expressed in 1935. The "habitual drunkards" here may want to follow this source:
Laws of the territory of Michigan, "An act amendatory to an act concerning habitual drunkards, and to protect their estates, approved the twelfth April, eighteen hundred and twenty-seven." -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 02:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
At the moment MOSNUM deals with these two concerns in one subheading. I think it would be preferable to deal with them under two subheadings, one for which units to use and the other for how to present the units. Does anyone have any comments, suggestions or concerns about this proposal? Michael Glass ( talk) 13:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
In response to the comments and concerns expressed I agree with Xionbox that two separate sections would be clearer for readers and easier to follow. This by itself is a good reason to consider the change that I have proposed. However, I also acknowledge that I have not explained the reasons for making the changes clearly enough, and I apologise to the three other editors who couldn't see the point of making any change.
The main problem is that advice on both which units to use and how to present them are scattered. This is especially true of the advice on how to present the units. By gathering the them into the two subheadings we can appreciate the policy more clearly. The best way to demonstrate this is with the advice on how to present the units. In this case, the particular advice was spread in several sub-headings, and putting it together clarifies the policy.
I must emphasise that this is not a matter of adjusting or editing or changing the wording, it is simply to rearrange the dot points without changing them. Putting the policy advice in two headings: Which units to use and How to present the units may reveal a need for further editing but this is a separate question that can be dealt with now or later.
Here is what "How to present the units" would look like when they are gathered together:
"Which units to use" could look as it is below, which follows the order in which the dot points appear in the present policy.
Apply these guidelines when choosing the "primary" unit for a measurement:
I hope that this answers the concerns that have been expressed. However, if there are any further comments or suggestions or concerns please let me know. Michael Glass ( talk) 11:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Good point, but I think the problem here is with the expression "What units to use." The section under this heading deals with the question of what units to put first and those are the words that should be used. The reason is twofold: "put first" is accurate while "what units to use" is potentially misleading, because it can give people the impression that only metrics or only Imperial/customary units are used. As the guidelines are quite clear that both metric and the older measures are to be used in a wide variety of contexts we should be careful not to confuse the issue.
A second point is that we need the whole story in one place. The problem here is that there are too many things that should be in one place than there are places to put them together. The next best thing is to have the sections side by side, which is what would happen with these two sub-sections: What units to put first and How to present the units
Thank you for raising this point. Have you spotted any other unintended consequences that need to be dealt with? Michael Glass ( talk) 14:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
On going through the policy I noticed that several points were about scientific and technical units. I think it would be a convenience for people using the policy to have these dot points under the heading, "Scientific and technical units". The dot points are as follows:
The dot points above are literally about what units of measurement to use. This contrasts with the rest of the section, which is about which units of measurement to put first. As the rest of the dot points are about which units to put first, how they are to be set out and related questions, they would need to follow each other in sequence, so the points about scientific and technical units would have to go before or after the others. I think putting them first would be preferable. Then, any relevant dot point that followed would also apply to these points.
Once again I ask for any comments, suggestions or concerns. Michael Glass ( talk) 10:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have now moved the three dot points above into their own section. Michael Glass ( talk) 10:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Reverted. The entire topic is about which units to put first, including the parts on scientific articles. Whether they then need converting is dealt with later. Putting the detail of the rule before we put the rule is confusing and unclear. Your proposal puts the cart before the horse. As such, I oppose it. Pfainuk talk 10:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the placement was not ideal. Perhaps it would be better to leave it in its place but give it a sub-subheading. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
For people of an older generation, the excitement of Roger Bannister breaking the four minute mile is an indelible memory. However, that memory, no matter how vivid it might be, comes from the year 1954, so only people over the age of 60 would be able to remember it. Now that many English-speaking countries have abandoned the older measures for over 30 years, an explanation of the exact length of the mile is necessary. Therefore using example of the four minute mile as an expression that does not need a conversion to be applied is no longer tenable, and as the article on the Four-minute mile explains the length in metres, the example should be removed from MOSNUM. Either a more suitable expression should be substituted or the sentence could simply state:
Are there any comments, suggestions or concerns? Michael Glass ( talk) 10:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, the dot points on presenting the units are scattered. Some are in Which units to use and how to present them while others are in Unit conversions. I propose to put these dot points together under How to present these units and then put them in the policy as shown below:
Please note that NO wording of any dot point has been changed. One heading has been changed and one heading has been added. Are there any comments, questions or concerns? Michael Glass ( talk) 02:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll illustrate with an example:
This has the following advantages over the SI v. IEC debate:
You might argue this violates the "no original work" ethic, but it strikes me as more of a copy-editing decision than anything particularly novel.
FWIW, I'm in the binary camp. I could live with this.
Jeberle ( talk) 07:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the Dates of birth and death section, this has probably been discussed but cannot easily find it in the archives. The issue is that I have been working on some biography articles, many that have little or no separate lead section. I generally convert thing like "John Doe (January 2, 1921 Fargo, North Dakota – February 3, 1999)" into instead "John Doe (1921–1999)" in the lead, with a body sentence that says "John Doe was born January 2, 1921 in Fargo, North Dakota", and spelling out the full date in the infobox, but been reverted. My thinking that the exact day the person was born is generally not an important enough detail to go in the lead. It just seems too redundant to have the full date appear in three places (lead, infobox, first sentence in body) right net to each other - that twice should suffice. The vital years make sense, because many people have the same name. Distinguishing them from other (often namesakes in the same family or field) is imporant, but the years suffice for that in almost every case. The current rule mandates the entire date be spelled out every time, which does not match many articles. It also is inconsistent with the rules for lead sections, which states "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic" therefore I would propose that it be at the editors discretion to allow years only the lead if the exact days of the year are not notable. The Biography MOS has at least one example using the year only. Maybe the Bio MOS is where this discussion or rule belongs? W Nowicki ( talk) 19:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Why? The burden of proof seems to be on those who claim an exception to the guidelines on lead sections. The lead (especially first sentence) should just give a very quick way to verify that this article matches the topic (person) a reader is looking for. To clarify, I would advocate allowing both styles, consistent with current practice and the lead section rule. Say, a long article with the vital details buried deep inside it might make sense to have them three places, or a very short one with them only in the lead and infobox. But repeating details thrice in a moderate sized article seems like undue weight. I have seen both styles in printed encyclopediae. W Nowicki ( talk) 18:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, MOSNUM refers to the Times Style Guide to illustrate British usage of metric and other measures. However, other UK style guides such as the Guardian Style Guide and the Economist Style Guide appear to rank more highly than the Times Style Guide in a Google search.
I believe that several guides should be noted because they have some quite notable variations, with the Economist Style Guide < http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=738514> being most in favour of metrics, followed by the Guardian, < http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/m> and with the Times style guide < http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and_services/specials/style_guide/article986731.ece> standing out as the most conservative of the three.
It is not neutral to link only to the most conservative of the newspapers; links to all three style guides would give readers access to a broader spectrum of authoritative views on British usage. I propose to add links to the Guardian and the Economist guides.
Are there any comments, suggestions or criticisms about such a change? Michael Glass ( talk) 10:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk has exploded like Colonel Blimp! How dare I quote anything other than the Times! It just goes to show what a scurrilous person I must be! I referred to The Observer! I noted the opinion of The Economist! I dared look at something other than The Times!!!
I believe that when we seek evidence of British usage, we quote several authorities, even if they are slightly different. By that means we can get a truer picture of the range of opinion in the British public, and not just its most conservative manifestation.
Pfainuk, your argumentum ad baculum is not a reasoned reply. This is not about metrication or non metrication but about linking the policy to one style manual as an example or more than one. This is the kind of thing I am suggesting.
Nothing here to scare anybody, just links to several style guides. Michael Glass ( talk) 12:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for all those comments on my proposal. A di M's revision is certainly an improvement and I welcome it. I'd just like to make the following observations:
However, A di M's revision has improved matters. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk, I accept your suggestion, but not the defective wording that Wjemather restored to the text. I've revised the text, using your wording and tightening the end of the sentence. Michael Glass ( talk)
A.di M., have a look at the text at the moment. I hope that you find it more satisfactory. Michael Glass ( talk) 08:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The following two dot points are in [ Unit Conversions].
I think they would be better placed immediately following the dot points about presentation of units in [ |Which units to use and how to present them].
I propose moving them to this location.
Are there any comments, suggestions or concerns about this proposal? Michael Glass ( talk) 03:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Templates like {{ start date}} and {{ start date and age}} have MD,Y date format by default which is actually used only in the United States and Canada. Since Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, I suggest the default format should be DMY. Artem Karimov ( talk | edits) 11:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I changed the use of UK pints in respect of milk to bottled milk on grounds that milk is usually sold in the supermarkets in 1, 2, 4 and 6 pint containers, but farmers subsidies are calculated per litre. Martinvl ( talk) 07:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The guidelines rightly say to write approximately in full and not to write approx. However, there is a shorter, better word: about. I think the Manual of Style could suggest using about instead of approximately, perhaps like this:
What do others think? Michael Glass ( talk) 06:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Two other dot points in "Unit Conversions" would be better placed with the other points on presentation of units. They are these two:
I propose to move these two dot points. Are there any comments on this proposal? Michael Glass ( talk) 00:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The process of metrication has resulted in many units, such as the furlong, yard, foot (length), inch, and pound (mass) falling out of use in countries other than the United States. More precisely, these units have fallen out of use in law and commerce because for the most part, they are not allowed on the labels of goods being sold and not used in statutes or regulations; it is difficult to judge the extent they are still used in general oral conversation. Since these units are still widely used in law and commerce in the United States and are less-used elsewhere, should we use US spelling (including "meter" rather than "metre"), date format, etc. in these articles about these units? Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Moonraker asked "How will that time be identified, please?" I would say the time has arrived for furlong, foot, inch, and pound (mass). Yard and mile are not so clear; yard is still used on UK road signs and in association football (or so I'm told; I haven't been to the UK since 1970 and don't follow either kind of football). Miles are still used on UK road signs. In my view, when the unit becomes unusual in current written sources that are writing about the present day rather than historical events, and which are not writing about the US, then the unit is much more strongly associated with the US than elsewhere and if an article about the unit exits, it should use the US variety of English. The written sources to be considered should include product labels. Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I have not looked into the other articles mentioned above but I would claim that furlong passes MOS:TIES An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation. Because while this is a well known unit of measure to the general public in the UK it is virtually unheard of in the united states. Not only that the first major edit to was it in British English on 17:49, 8 June 2004. We should stick with WP:RETAIN if MOS:TIES is in dispute as it has resolved many disagreements in wikipedia such as "Gasoline" → "Petrol". -- Phoenix ( talk) 03:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The section headed "Which units to use and how to present them" has two groups of dot points. The first group deals with which units to put first; the second group deals with how to present the units. Dealing with these two issues under one subheading is not as clear as it could be. I therefore propose to add a sub-subheading entitled How to present the units and to change the existing subheading to Which units to put first.
The reasons for this are:
In addition
Are there any comments, suggestions or concerns about this proposal? Michael Glass ( talk) 01:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I've made several changes as follows:
I hope that these revisions are helpful. Michael Glass ( talk) 03:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page is currently undergoing a review to ensure it forms a relevant and effective part of the Manual of Style. Please add review comments below along with notes of any improvement actions taken during the review.
Why use three words when two words would do? I propose that we change the names to Style Manual. Michael Glass ( talk) 23:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Questions which may highlight issues. Does this page fulfil a recognized and necessary role within the MoS? Is there a role conflict with any other MoS page?
Questions which may highlight issues. Does this page have a clear identity in relation to other MoS pages? While a reader is obtaining guidance from this page, is it clear to the reader where to go for more general, and more specific, guidance related to its topic?
Questions which may highlight issues. Is the prose clear and concise? Does the guidance given reflect consensus?
Questions which may highlight issues. Is this page too large to be manageable, or too small to be meaningful as a page in its own right? Should it be restructured? Should it be merged with another page?
Questions which may highlight issues. Is any detail here also present on any other MoS page? Are the two in step? Should the detail be confined to one place, and only summarized at the other? Should transclusion be considered?
It would be good to examine the wording of both MOS and MOSNUM in detail and choose the better wording where they differ. Despite their great similarity there are some differences, and some are significant. Michael Glass ( talk) 12:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
What in the world is going here? We don't need yet another unclear and convoluted attempt at some kind of unneeded and uncessary reform, with template clutter on top of that! I won't archive this, but I'm removing that horrifying banner. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
They're indented individually. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I have created Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles)#List of date formats used. I don't have access to the CP style guide but references seems to imply that it is Month Date, Year for long date format and mm/dd/yyyy for short date. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This review has been open for a couple of weeks now, and has generated discussion of a number of areas. There are issues of duplication of detail between this page and other MoS pages; consensus was achieved to remove this duplication in one area, and this has been done. If anyone wishes to make further specific proposals as part of this review, or respond further to existing points, please do so now. Once this review is archived, please re-raise any unresolved matters as and when required, either on this talk page or the main MoS one as appropriate. PL290 ( talk) 21:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, the policy refers to the US, the UK and Commonwealth countries. I think it would be better to give guidance more generally, Unfortunately, a previous proposal [3] got no-where, but I still want to work out a wording that would be generally acceptable.
The present wording reads:
I would like to suggest the following revision:
My reasons are as follows:
Other points are as follows:
I hope that this time we will be able to come up with wording that reflects the world-wide nature of the encyclopedia while continuing to give the respect that is due to local usage. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Matters of style would rightly apply to all articles. In this particular case the guidelines cover articles on the US, the UK and Commonwealth countries but fail to cover other countries. We therefore have the anomalous situation where there is policy for
and so on.
My proposed change is designed to remedy this anomaly. It does not affect what the guidelines say about the US and the Commonwealth, but it extends this policy to other countries who do not happen to be covered at the moment. Then policy would cover all countries (almost 200) and not just the 55 countries that are covered at present.
I hope that this answers the concerns that have been expressed. Michael Glass ( talk) 04:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
In that case the entire clause about Commonwealth countries is redundant and should be removed. Having it remain there is just misleading. Would anyone have any objections if I removed it? 122.106.23.32 ( talk) 10:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I revoked the changes to the MoS because I do not think that the question of “most appropriate” or “most widely used” has been thought through carefully enough.
Firstly, Wikipedia is written for the benefit of its readers, not for the benefit of the residents of the area that is being described. If the units of measure used in the literature correspond to the expectation of the readers, then there will be no problem. If however this expectation does not hold, then the issue needs to be resolved. One of the aims of the MoS is to resolve this problem.
The English language version of Wikipedia is not only read by people whose native tuonge is English, but also by people for whom English is a second language, but who prefer to read the English language version because it is more comprehensive.
If an article describes the locality in general terms, then it is probable that the residents of that area would form the majority of the readers. This is almost certainly true of the United States and of the United Kingdom, but is probably not true of some remote islands. For example, Gough Island has a typical resident population of six – South African meteorologists - yet it get over 100 hits a day. In the case of Gough Island, the readers are almost certainly not the residents. Another example worth considering is Ulan Bator. Although the city has over a million residents and appears in Wikipedia in a large number of languages, the English language version appears to be the most comprehensive. Thus I would assume that a significant number of readers of that article would be readers for whom English is a second language.
I think that these example show that although the units of measure used in a locality might be the appropriate ones to use in a Wikipedia article, this is not always the case. For this reason I argue that the words “most appropriate” should be used rather than “most widely used”. The principal measure of “appropriateness” would be made by consulting the literature relating to the subject and deviating only if there is a good case to do so. Martinvl ( talk) 15:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The Units of Measurement sections of MOS and MOSNUM are largely, but not completely identical in layout and wording. In many cases, MOSNUM is better but in some cases MOS has the better wording. One example is in the introduction. MOSNUM's wording is brief but cryptic whereas MOS's wording is longer but clearer, and better in getting the message across.
MOSNUM: If there is trouble balancing these bullets, consult other editors through the talk page and try to reach consensus.
MOS: In instances where these principles appear to conflict with one another, consult other editors on the article's talk page and try to reach consensus.
As the Manual of Style version is clearer and much easier to follow I propose to bring the wording over into MOSNUM. Any comments, suggestions or concerns? Michael Glass ( talk) 05:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The previous discussion evidently was deemed cold by the archive bot. So I propose to edit as we seemed to roughly agree, and then perhaps add more clarification in the BIO MOS. That is, allow (1999–2222) or (January 1, 1999 – December 22, 2222) depending on if the full dates vs. years are relevant and not redundant. W Nowicki ( talk) 20:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
MOS gives the following advice on avoiding unnecessary vagueness:
Use accurate measurements whenever possible.
Vague | Precise |
---|---|
The wallaby is small. | The average male wallaby is 1.6 metres (63 in) from head to tail. |
Prochlorococcus marinus is a tiny cyanobacterium. | The cyanobacterium Prochlorococcus marinus is 0.5 to 0.8 micrometres across. |
The large oil spill stretched a long way down the Alaskan coast. | The oil spill that drifted down the Alaskan coast was 3 statute miles (5 km) long and 1,000 feet (300 m) wide. |
Is this worth reproducing in MOSNUM? Michael Glass ( talk) 13:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I apologize if this has been discussed before, but I have been searching through guides and talk page archives for an answer to my question and to tell you the truth I am not about to go through pages upon pages of MoS holy wars to answer a simple question. Was consensus ever reached on whether the YYYY-MM-DD format is allowed in citations or not? I need to know whether I'm about to head over to Google and start a mass conversion of citation dates. Thanks to whoever can help me out. — Parent5446 ☯ ( msg email) 18:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The words "lakh" and "crore" appear quite often in articles about Indian related subjects. As a non-Indian I find it impedes understanding when I read sentences such as: "Since liberalization, the value of India's international trade has become more broad-based and has risen to Rs. 63,080,109 crores in 2003–04 from Rs.1,250 crores in 1950–51." (quoted from Economy of India). I think use of these (non universal English) terms should be discouraged. I'm fairly sure Indians who are fluent in English are quite familiar with "thousand", "hundred thousand" and "million". Roger ( talk) 17:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to drop a note about this discussion on the India WikiProject's talk page, we could do with participation from them. Roger ( talk) 11:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
There are two reasonable choices - a) links for Lakh and Crore b) using parenthesis. Personally i prefer parenthesis. Using both lakhs and millions might be a little inconvenient for the writer but it is best option to satisfy both Indian and non-Indian readers. Most Indian English readers dont use million/billion yet (i still get hopelessly confused trying a mental conversion)-- Sodabottle ( talk) 12:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
BTW, searching the archives through the box at the top of this talkpage for "lakh crore" turned out several past discussions on this, the most recent one being /Archive 122#WP:ENGVAR and Indian number format (lakh/crore) from April 2009. ― A._di_M. 3nd Dramaout (formerly Army1987) 10:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Roger. It seems to me that "lakh" and "crore" are local terms for words that are already established in English. The fact this locale has one billion people does mean it is equally recognized in other locations. Linking is fine, but why link when there are proper terms in English. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
INRConvert|400|c|0}}
)group="Note"
, if anything). Also, while the {{ChineseText}} template box looks decent, current use of those boxes implies a technical issue with page rendering, rather than a comprehension issue. I don't think we should confuse things by introducing an alternative meaning for those boxes.I've added a bullet point to the MOS on this topic, which I believe does a credible job of capturing the consensus here. One minor note: I chose to follow WP:ITALICS and didn't italicize the loanwords lakh and crore—that's a bit divergent from our usage above, but seems justified. TheFeds 03:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The MOS:NUM#Unnecessary vagueness section has a duplicate section near the bottom of the page. They don't match exactly. The first one is red and green, and the second one has an extra example (search for "Malibu"). So which duplicate do you want to keep? Art LaPella ( talk) 00:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, I added a {{ DocumentHistory}} template to this page when interest was expressed in the idea that we should begin to keep track of the status of MoS documents in this way. I did so after this initiative by another editor was welcomed at the main MoS talk page, but unfortunately, User:Headbomb has taken against the template and has now reverted my edit several times, so that despite some support for using it, it is now gone again from this page. No objections to the template have been expressed by any others. Contributions are now sought to the discussion on the main MoS talk page about whether to continue the use of this template in MoS pages. PL290 ( talk) 07:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
For the disambiguation part (ie. writing out 5MiB as 5×1024² bytes) does the MOS mean to do it for EVERYTHING (eg. computer specifications, games system requirments, etc.) or only when there's an ambiguity? Adding (xx×1024^x bytes) after everything seems very tedious and redundant to me, and infers a false sense of accuracy when there might not be (eg. system requirements). -- antilived T | C | G 05:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The text of this article mentions "eighth of a millimetre". My unerstanding is that vulgar fractions should not be used with metric units. I propose therefore to replace "millimetre" with "inch" in this example and to add an additional bullet point:
References
Martinvl ( talk) 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
We should not require that metric units always be expressed as decimals. The citations given by Martinvl are confined to the realm of consumer goods, where the goal is to allow the consumer to compare various packages. Decimal values are certainly superior for that purpose. However, we may sometimes have to write about nominal design values that may be vulgar fractions. For example, if a certain circuit board process required as many contacts as possible in 1 mm, and the designers found the maximum possible was 3, then the contact pitch would be 1/3 mm.
If it was a good idea to require values to always be expressed as decimals, BIPM would have said so. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The current text is missing a parenthesis. I propose the more active phrasing:
I don't see any need for this "rule" to be applied so broadly. What is wrong with saying "Mature oompaloompa trees are between 21/2 and 31/2 metres tall" or "Vehicles heavier than 121/2 tonnes require special permission to enter the city"? The trade regulations of one country are not a sufficient basis for an entry in the MoS - WP is not a business website selling goods to UK citizens. Roger ( talk) 19:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Roger deleted my "tongue in cheek" comment as rubbish. [4] That may be, but that term could apply to half of what is covered on the MOSNUM talk page. People are dueling to the death over a half-liter bottle of Coke or how to report the temperature in the Falklands (or something like that.) The only thing that prevents these disputes from escalating to atomic warfare is that would cause a nuclear winter and we could not decide what months are in winter. So I ask again, is the term "half-assed" a vulgar fraction? -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 21:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
There seems to me to be an ambiguity with scientific notation. The section states
However, it does not then state whether it is allowed for the leading digit to be zero.
I could argue that the same ambiguity arises with engineering notation, but there I think it is less pronounced, because it seems less likely an editor would increase or decrease the exponent by a factor of a thousand simply to force or avoid a leading zero. Si Trew ( talk) 13:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It is proposed that the article WP:FALKLANDSUNITS be merged into WP:MOSNUM.
The reasons for this are:
This raises the question, “Does a small archipelago which is home to fewer than 0.001% of the world’s English-speaking population warrant its own rules regarding units of measure?” I cannot see any good reason. The solution as I see it is to merge the existing artilce into the article WP:MOSNUM. The only question is how the merger should be done?
My proposal is that this be accomplished by:
Martinvl ( talk) 19:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
IMO, having WP:MOSNUM spend two kilobytes of words about said archipelago would be even weirder, by far. ― A._di_M. 3rd Dramaout (formerly Army1987) 23:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I should like to add that I object very strongly to Martinvl's canvassing. His choice of locations to canvass is in violation of WP:CANVASS rules against votestacking, in that he notified users individually who support his position in the Falklands units dispute, but not users who oppose his position. Pfainuk talk 20:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Reject Proposal I'm tired of this utterly lame dispute. We have two editors who have zero interest in the project work on the Falklands, who hijacked our attempt to improve the articles on our watchlists with their crusade to metricate Wikipedia. They will accept nothing less that full metrication and contrive various ruses to do so. Every 3 - 4 weeks we have yet another proposal to metricate in complete contempt of other users opinions. This needa an RFC on user conduct not more time wasting. Justin talk 20:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk, the fact that you won't agree to changing even the weather data demonstrates that you had no intention of changing anything at any time if you could help it. Proposing to change the weather data was far less than what you proposed, and was a gigantic concession. You were not prepared to go even that far. This makes a mockery of your claim of having compromised. There is no more to be said here. Michael Glass ( talk) 22:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk, that's a lie. I asked for a change to the weather data. You refused. The rest is spin. Michael Glass ( talk) 02:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
This thread has got bogged down in personal attacks. In order to get the discussion back on topic, I have some observations:
The reason the geology article doesn't follow WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is because WP:FALKLANDSUNITS doesn't have consensus at present. If and when it gets consensus, the geology article is one of those that will change. I maintain my objection to this notion that we should delete a perfectly reasonable standing proposal. It is unnecessary and needlessly provocative.
I also note, with slight bemusement at finding myself on the other side of the argument, that the proposed text does not necessarily fairly reflect actual usage in all BOTs. The British Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus (which between them form one of the British Overseas Territories) follow, insofar as it is practical, Cypriot law. Almost all permanent residents are Cypriots as the British are barred by treaty from using the bases for non-military purposes. I can't comment from experience, but I would imagine that local usage is metric-first in practically all situations that are likely to occur in articles on the subject. Why should they used a mixed system? I believe that Gibraltar also uses the metric system to a greater extent than the UK proper: distances and speeds along Gibraltar roads are measured in kilometres and kilometres per hour, for example. The situation is more complicated than that line would suggest.
As to the relationship with WP:MOSNUM? Well, I'm sure we can agree some appropriate means of doing this without deleting the proposal. It's just that this is the first time that this has been brought up. The proposal is not intended to be subordinate to WP:UNITS but rather complimentary to it. I have edited it to more clearly reflect this, and I hope that the current version can get consensus. Pfainuk talk 18:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Although I am still unhappy with many aspects of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS, I believe it best that these be remedied by the Falkland Islands Group. I therefore withdraw my proposal to merge the two articles. I have however amended the opening paragraph of the article WP:FALKLANDSUNITS to read Since the Falkland Islands follow British practice in respect of units of mesaure, Falkland Island articles should do likewise which I believe captures the spirit of both articles. Martinvl ( talk) 10:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:SEASON redirects to a section that discourages the use of seasons as dates except where there is a logical connection. There is another usage of seasons in articles which is entirely appropriate: the natural world, such as the cultivation of plants and the like. Here we sometimes see the reverse mistake being made, where people assume that seasons always occur in specific months. One example would be assuming that crocuses (an autumn-flowering plant) always bloom around October, and stating "October" in the article instead of "autumn". This kind of mistake can be quite subtle, such as this text from an old version of Pedunculate Oak [ here]: Flowering takes place in mid spring, and their fruit, called acorns, ripen by autumn of the same year. Do you see it? It assumes that spring precedes autumn in a calendar year, which is impossible in the Gregorian calendar in the southern hemisphere.
I think we need to expand the guidelines for WP:SEASON a bit. In particular, we need to clarify the situations where seasons are preferred, and mention that seasons and dates are not generally interchangeable. We could do this by adding another whole paragraph, but I think a small clarification and adding one or two more succinct examples may suffice. The only example of the logical connection for seasons mentions "the autumn harvest" which is a bit human-centric. Perhaps we can add as another example something like "apple trees blossom in spring" as an example of seasons in the natural world.
My recommended changes to WP:SEASON:
These small amendments may be necessary for those times when people visit WP:SEASON in the context of seasons in the natural world, but instead find discussions about calendar dates. -- B.D.Mills ( T, C) 12:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It should make clear that the seasons cannot be used as dates because they are reversed in the southern hemisphere, and the tropics have different seasons than the temperate zones (i.e. a wet season and a dry season). However, while seasons cannot be used globally for dating things, they have legitimate uses, as in saying " Apple trees bloom in the spring". However, if editors say "Apple trees bloom in the spring", they should be aware that they are implying that they bloom from September 21 to December 21 in the southern hemisphere. (Interestingly, the article says that if grown in Ecuador, which is in the tropics, they bloom twice a year.) RockyMtnGuy ( talk) 21:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I posit that "Pferdestärke" or PS as a unit of power has no place in common use on the English Wikipedia. It merely breeds confusion over power units as a unit that obsolete, non-SI and exceedingly rarely used in the majority of English-speaking countries. It is a leftover of history that is noteworthy for its existence, and still useful in those locales and languages in which is it lingua franca, but its presence in the English Wikipedia serves only to engender confusion. I don't advocate its complete removal- in cases where the PS measurement was significant to some issue or another, I feel that it could remain in use- but it should never be used as a unit of preference. I have found in the past that the state of power unit usage on the English Wikipedia is quite confused- with instances of each of the common units (HP, kW, PS) being used alone and also with a conversion, none of which was consistent. I propose that we make a standard policy for listing power which would be either "XX HP (YY kW)" or "XX kW (YY HP)" which does not allow the use of PS as a standard unit of measurement unless the context of the article makes it necessary in order for the rest of the article to make sense. Phasmatisnox ( talk) 18:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
So you don't care what advertisers do and you don't care if our information has no relationship on the advertising material that readers see. I understand that the measure has been replaced. So have pounds in Canada. In fact that was more than thirty years ago. However you still see grocers advertising their produce in price per pound. People who have never been taught the imperial system of weights still shop this way. I would say that as long as it's not the primary measure and that another measure is also listed that PS is fine. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that the current layout of the Units of Measurement section is a little untidy, particularly the phrase which reads "Except in the cases mentioned below, put ...". I propose that this section be re-arranged as shown here. This proposal has some minor changes to the headings, but does not change any text (apart from changing the word "below" to "above" to reflect some text being moved).
One of the areas in this section that needs to be looked at is whether the section on scientific and technical terms needs to be broken into two sections. I think that the new layout will simplify such a break-up should it be required, with the new section on technical units coming ahead of the heading "Default case". Furthermore, if other special cases need to be considered in this section they can be slotted into the list in the same way.
Even if new sections are not added, I think that this is a tidier way of presenting the information. Martinvl ( talk) 11:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I've opened an RfC on what to do with the date formatting across the entire series of biographies on Canada's governors general: Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#RfC on date format for GG bios. Input is requested so as to bring this issue to a resolution. Cheers. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion if acre-foot should be used or not as a unit to measure the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Some guidelines could be useful. Beagel ( talk) 08:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I should assume the following are correct with regard to the spacing of n-dashes?
I personally figured spaces might avoid confusion in the latter case, but something on the MOSNUM page to said effect would be helpful. ― cobaltcigs 10:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
bibleref}}
and {{
bibleref2}}
so to standardise them.Come to think of it I see no guidance with regard to time ranges either.
The first style (with 10–11 directly adjacent) seems undesirable, to me at least. ― cobaltcigs 00:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
In a book I was reading about the lead-up to the First World War, the term "the 1900s" appeared. They meant 1900-1909, not 1900-1999. There needs to be a term for the first decade of a century (the term "the oughties" that I've heard is mere silliness). In the conventional sense, we have just passed the first decade of the twenty-first century, and some standardized term needs to be used such a first decade. It used to be that the term for the century was used, but it seems that the phrase using the plural of the first year in the conventional sense appeared because it seemed that the general public was dumbed-down and couldn't handle that the term "Twentieth Century" referred to the years that began with 19. 4.154.251.243 ( talk) 23:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
In the example provided here:
Month before day: February 14 and February 14, 1990 (comma required)
This means that a comma around the year is required, is this correct? Example: On February 14, 1990, ...
Thanks, Davtra ( talk) 05:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The example ends at "1990", so the guideline says nothing about what character should follow the "0". Normal American English usage would consider all of the following to be correct:
As another angle which may shed light, remember that these are not comma pairs per se; the comma after the 14 is because of US date formatting (February 14, 1990). With UK date formatting (14 February 1990) there is no comma. (See WP:DATESNO.) Any comma after the year should be considered in its own right. PL290 ( talk)
The phrase “held February 14, 1990”, being of parenthetical import, should have a comma both before and after it, or in neither place. ― cobaltcigs 18:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
On several occasions I've wanted to ask something about the widely used and many variants of Template:Geobox. Unfortunately, the template is protected and discussions about it are scattered across many articles and projects. I've just come across Kern River which currently gives a flow of "47,000 cu ft/s (1,330.89 m3/s)". The conversion seems to be coded into the protected template. The original value of 2 signicant figures has been converted into 6 significant figures. I think the template has been over-engineered and has lost the simplicity and universal editability that is at the heart of Wikipedia. How do you change the template? Lightmouse ( talk) 11:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This came up as I was doing the GA review at Number.
The MoS (in WP:MOSNUM) tells us to write fractions "in fractional form", but we're not told what that is. In the section "fraction", we are told we can (not that we must, of course), use {{
frac}}
and are given an example for common fractions.
But we are not told what "fractional form" is and we have to guess. I think this needs to be defined. I think this is important, because for example at
Number fractions (not in <math>
sections) were written as a/b, and it could well be argued that is "fractional form" but I don't think that's the intention of the MoS. I think somewhere else in the maze that is MoS there is a more specific definition, because I am pretty sure it's encouraged to use the form that {{frac}}
supplies, i.e. superscript-oblique-supscript, and somewhere there's an discouragement from using the characters ¼, ¾ and so on. (I believe using ⁄ might also help those using non-graphic user agents such as browsers for the blind.)
So I think a strict definition of "fractional form" is needed. I would suggest as a draft definition:
<sup>
tag), the denominator in subscript text (using the <sub>
tag), and a normal-sized oblique bar (/) between them. There should be no spaces between these three parts.I note also the section "fractions" says how to write out "common fractions" without defining what they are. Since in maths text typically fractions are algebraic, e.g. in Number they are like a⁄b, these are not common fractions in the arithmetical sense. So, there's no advice on how to write out fractions that are not common fractions at all.
On that article, I have (I hope) used common sense and changed the fractions to use {{frac}}
, in the absense of anything on the talk page suggesting that there is any consensus for them to be otherwise. However, there is a good case in articles like this to use "a/b" to show the implied division – something this article actually is a bit woolly about, since it seems to flick between using "rational number" and "fraction" interchangeably, which I don't think is a good thing for an article trying to pin down definitions.
As always, I should appreciated your views. Si Trew ( talk) 10:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
{{frac}}
is OK but should not make the implementation the specification. As far as I know, MOSNUM never mentions {{
convert}}
at all, for example. There are other places in the MoS that effectively define templates as the specification, but I think it is a bad idea: any conforming implementation (article or template) can be used instead.
Si Trew (
talk)
10:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC){{
frac}}
is available. (There is also an error in the copy/paste information: ((frac|N|p|q}} ({{
frac|N|p|q}}
) pastes as:
Fractions#Writing fractions may be of help; it also has a source. There are several ways to write fractions; most of them exist because they are useful in different circumstances: but 347/999 is a natural distinction, which really should be left to editorial discretion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear friends, I note that the changes made to the MoS guidelines on currency have brought that page and MOSNUM further out of line with each other. I wonder whether editors here would mind comparing the two, and negotiating parallel changes at MOSNUM. Tony (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The layout of WP:SEASON and surrounding paragraphs is messed up in my browser, with the text at the left margin and the bullet point located above the word "Seasons". Does anyone else see this? Ucucha 16:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)