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 70 | ← | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | → | Archive 80 |
To me, the current lead is lame. Like the wobbly second para of MOS central, which was removed last week, this lead seems to apologise for the existence of the manual. And it should take the opportunity to refer explicitly to its area of specialisation.
Just as an overriding statement has been inserted into the lead at MOS central that the guidelines don't apply to direct quotations, it would be neater to say that in the lead here, too, and thus to remove the references to this from the body of the text.
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Your thoughts? Tony 12:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This part of the Manual of Style aims to achieve consistency in the use and format of dates and numbers in Wikipedia articles. Consist standards will make articles easier to read, write and edit. Consistency should be maintained, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise; or in direct quotations, where the original text should be preserved.
This part of the Manual of Style aims to achieve consistency in the use and format of dates and numbers in Wikipedia articles. Consistent standards will make articles easier to read, write and edit. Consistency should be maintained unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. In direct quotations the original text should be preserved.
Oh, these are all improvements on my offering. But further tweaking is required. May I chuck this into the ring, then?
This part of the Manual of Style aims to achieve consistency in the use and formatting of dates and numbers in Wikipedia articles. Consistent standards make articles easier to read, write and edit. Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. In direct quotations, the original text should be preserved.
"Formatting" to match "use"— here, these are processes, not results, I think. I removed the future "will", coz it's stronger to suggest to all that the manual is influential now. "Within articles" is an essential point that is taken from both MOS central and the existing text and spirit of MOSNUM (i.e., don't use a mixture of 12- and 24-hour clock unless there's a good reason to do so.) But I see your concern about "consistency", which was used in two senses without clarity. Better now? Tony 01:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a guideline to be added to the MOS regarding formatting dates that are Wiki-linked.
Example:
Markup in text | Rendered result† |
---|---|
[[April 11]] [[1998]] | April 11 1998 |
[[11 April]] [[1998]] | 11 April 1998 |
† Depending, of course, on reader's preference settings. This is the default.
Rationale: 'Tis better to let the wiki-software handle the insertion (or not) of commas, since this is its intended purpose. The date will be rendered correctly, depending on the viewer's preference settings. This
I don't see any downsides to this. So whaddya think? + ILike2BeAnonymous 20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[[April 11]] [[1998]]
, which will always render a properly formatted result. The only issue is whether or not to put commas in the markup. The commas will appear (or not) correctly based on preferences set. I'm not advocating creating dates that could display incorrectly, like "April 11 1998".The earlier discussion wasn't hard to find; Archive D4, Commas in dates. It's in the second box from the top right corner of this page. And you're not as insane as I started to assume; yes, Wikipedia adds the comma to American-style linked dates that lack the comma. But, as the earlier discussion points out, that can't be guaranteed for mirrors and forks. And the comma does not get inserted for the nav popup (at least it didn't, as I remember), and I found that fairly annoying. Chris the speller 19:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This is /very/ bad idea. Here's something I told another user: It's a common misconception that commas should not be included within American dates, indeed they are automatically added in the rendered version. However, the MoS states clearly that an American topic should use American dates (there are commas in American dates), it would make it grammatically incorrect not to use commas (think of it like this: if the software fixed typos on the rendered version, would it be acceptable to have them?) Please remember that Wikipedia is forked, a lot of these mirrors don't use the same setup as Wikipedia (consequentially they may contain bad grammar if commas are removed). Matthew 20:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[[April 11]] [[1998]]
wouldn't work for anonymous users and for registered users with "No preference" for dates selected, but I just noticed that it magically is working for both now. I guess our developers have fixed this since the last time I checked it. ~
Jeff Q
(talk) 23:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Yes, if the proposal to eliminate commas were to be accepted, you would need to deep-six the first comma in this line:
[[February 17]], [[1958]]
will be rendered as either “February 17, 1958” or “17 February 1958”.[[17 February]] [[1958]]
will be rendered as either “February 17, 1958” or “17 February 1958”.This is a storm in a teacup. Personally, I prefer to eliminate commas in wikidates, because the software automatically formats them correctly. However, I would be opposed to making this compulsory, simply because it's not something that is worth enforcing. American editors are going to use a comma, because to them that is the way things are, and very few of them are going to bother hunting down the MOS or the various discussions. As to forks, let the forks look after themselves. -- Pete 03:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If linking of all dates was mandatory the above comma/no comma problems would be rendered pointless by the autoformat, with the added addition that registered users who had bothered to set their date preferences would see dates displayed in their chosen format, all registered users benefit regardless of their chosen national date format. - X201 18:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with the current restriction never to pluralize imperial units. While I understand metric units are not pluralized in their abbreviated forms, certain imperial units are nearly always abbreviated. Particularly 10 lbs. and 100 yds. (although yards are less commonly used than pounds, the primary measurement of mass in the imperial system). In mainstream American writing, I never see 200 lb. but rather 200 lbs. Some examples are: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] This is not advocacy to adopt a US-centric style, but since the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar are the only countries still using the imperials system, any article in English Wikipedia that does include pounds should abbreviate it as lbs. Talmage 00:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Unlike many guidelines, this one is comprehensive, simple to understand, and simple to apply. Plural symbols for some units, in some circumstances would be complicated. It would effectively end the guideline. I would rather delete the guideline.
I presume we are only discussing within-parentheses and within-tables. One method of thinking about a problem is to invert it. Instead of asking the question where is lbs acceptable, invert it and ask where is lb unacceptable.
Lightmouse 12:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It's been over a clause I added to the very last section "Submanuals" (after posting the proposal at talk to no response, mind you):
Where a discrepancy arises between the text of this manual and that of a submanual, the former prevails.
The arguments for this clause are set out in detail on talk. I'm alerting my colleagues here because I think there may be support among them for better coordination between all 33 MOSs; my "discrepancy" clause is intended to encourage cross-checking and centralised discussion at MOS central when significant changes are proposed for daughter articles. It sees daughter articles as setting out greater detail rather than being separate empires.
Your thoughts? Tony 02:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The time has finally come to unveil a draft summary of the poorly named "dates and numbers" guidelines (dates are far too narrowly defined to encompass this topic). MOS central already has summaries of the important submanuals, with links to them at the subsection level. Therefore, it's inconsistent not to include this highly significant part of style at the central location. The role of the submanual, like that of others, will be to set out the topic in greater detail, tended by specialists. I'm also keen that there be more coordination between the submanuals and MOS central.
My aim is to produce a summary that:
I seek your advice and feedback on this draft over the next, say, two weeks, so that it can be refined before taking it to the talk page at MOS central. I suggest that consideration be given for using the text of the summary to improve the submanual (the which case the examples should be different).
I seek your consensus on:
Miscellaneous points:
To assist you in providing advice and feedback, I've set out the headings and subheadings of the proposal for you to add your comments on (b)–(d), with space at the top for general comments, particularly WRT (a). I expect that people will scrutinise and comment on portions at a time; please note that you can sign with four tildes at a number of locations below in the same edit. If you have no issues with a subsection, an "OK" or simply nothing might be enough.
Tony 05:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
These improvements have already made] on the basis of feedback from users. My only concern is MJCdetroit's addition of the UK to the existing list of countries (the US, Liberia and Myanmar) for which imperial units should be the main ones, with metric units in parentheses, rather than vice versa. On consulting Metrication in the United Kingdom, yes, it does appear to be a mixed bag in the UK. However, I'd still prefer the metrics to be the main units for UK-related articles. The alternative is to explicitly state that either way is acceptable for UK-related articles. MJC's edit forces imperial units to be the main ones, with which I disagree.
I can see that my line would lead to too much flak, so does anyone object if we explicitly allow both systems for UK-related articles? Tony 08:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Should a mention be made of hundred hours? As in "The attack was scheduled to start at 0700 hours"? -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
--- or put a comma or the word of between month and year. This seems to assume American style "October 25, 1976" not European style "25 October, 1976" -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Tony 01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no acceptance of dates like 25th October? -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Years - not mentioned explicitly, but needed here (there's "Eras" in the next section). We need to add that both "BCE/CE and BC/AD are acceptable." but call for consistency, and to explain where to put "AD". PamD 08:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Supposing one is talking about the first RAF 1,000 bomber raid of WWII that occurred on night of 30/31 May 1942. How should such dates be represented given that 30 May will be inverted if linked and the option is set in the user options? -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Convenience link back to the draft summary
Billion should be expanded to mention Long and short scales, and that Wikipedia uses the short scale Billion of 109 unless it is explicitly mentioned that in a specific context that it means 1012. This is important to highlight for foreign language editors who's native system is long scale as they often work with figures from a foreign language translation an they may not be aware that in English it is usual to use the short scale. BTW UK was long scale before 1974. -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Adding Long and short scales to the "See also Magnitude prefixes and Order of magnitude." would be useful. Any reason for not using the {{ see also}}? -- Philip Baird Shearer 05:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I think a better link than Commas is Commas. -- Philip Baird Shearer 05:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the wording is silly. a "decimal point" is far clearer than "period". What is needed for those editors from Decimal separator#Comma countries that in English a decimal point is used between the between the integral and the fractional parts of a decimal, and that a comma is used symbol as the thousands separator. And probably a mention that when a number in numerical is taken from a non English language source that care is taken with the translation of the decimal seperator and the thousands separator. -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Convenience link back to the draft summary
The UK needs removing from the first bullet point -- Philip Baird Shearer 14:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Partial dates seems to have become misplaced under this section heading.
It's a section I found bemusing on first encounter, and still feel is unclear. "Dates which do not reflect users' preferences ...": I thought it was telling me that a user following that link would end up at a page other than where s/he wanted to go. It's all very negative. Could usefully all be scrapped, replaced by the couple of sentences explaining how User Preferences affect day/month dates, which I've just seen elsewhere ... ah yes, it's your "Autoformatting and linking" proposal, which seems sensible, thanks. PamD 16:40, 25 July 2007 (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 70 | ← | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | → | Archive 80 |
To me, the current lead is lame. Like the wobbly second para of MOS central, which was removed last week, this lead seems to apologise for the existence of the manual. And it should take the opportunity to refer explicitly to its area of specialisation.
Just as an overriding statement has been inserted into the lead at MOS central that the guidelines don't apply to direct quotations, it would be neater to say that in the lead here, too, and thus to remove the references to this from the body of the text.
EXISTING
PROPOSED
Your thoughts? Tony 12:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This part of the Manual of Style aims to achieve consistency in the use and format of dates and numbers in Wikipedia articles. Consist standards will make articles easier to read, write and edit. Consistency should be maintained, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise; or in direct quotations, where the original text should be preserved.
This part of the Manual of Style aims to achieve consistency in the use and format of dates and numbers in Wikipedia articles. Consistent standards will make articles easier to read, write and edit. Consistency should be maintained unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. In direct quotations the original text should be preserved.
Oh, these are all improvements on my offering. But further tweaking is required. May I chuck this into the ring, then?
This part of the Manual of Style aims to achieve consistency in the use and formatting of dates and numbers in Wikipedia articles. Consistent standards make articles easier to read, write and edit. Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. In direct quotations, the original text should be preserved.
"Formatting" to match "use"— here, these are processes, not results, I think. I removed the future "will", coz it's stronger to suggest to all that the manual is influential now. "Within articles" is an essential point that is taken from both MOS central and the existing text and spirit of MOSNUM (i.e., don't use a mixture of 12- and 24-hour clock unless there's a good reason to do so.) But I see your concern about "consistency", which was used in two senses without clarity. Better now? Tony 01:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a guideline to be added to the MOS regarding formatting dates that are Wiki-linked.
Example:
Markup in text | Rendered result† |
---|---|
[[April 11]] [[1998]] | April 11 1998 |
[[11 April]] [[1998]] | 11 April 1998 |
† Depending, of course, on reader's preference settings. This is the default.
Rationale: 'Tis better to let the wiki-software handle the insertion (or not) of commas, since this is its intended purpose. The date will be rendered correctly, depending on the viewer's preference settings. This
I don't see any downsides to this. So whaddya think? + ILike2BeAnonymous 20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[[April 11]] [[1998]]
, which will always render a properly formatted result. The only issue is whether or not to put commas in the markup. The commas will appear (or not) correctly based on preferences set. I'm not advocating creating dates that could display incorrectly, like "April 11 1998".The earlier discussion wasn't hard to find; Archive D4, Commas in dates. It's in the second box from the top right corner of this page. And you're not as insane as I started to assume; yes, Wikipedia adds the comma to American-style linked dates that lack the comma. But, as the earlier discussion points out, that can't be guaranteed for mirrors and forks. And the comma does not get inserted for the nav popup (at least it didn't, as I remember), and I found that fairly annoying. Chris the speller 19:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This is /very/ bad idea. Here's something I told another user: It's a common misconception that commas should not be included within American dates, indeed they are automatically added in the rendered version. However, the MoS states clearly that an American topic should use American dates (there are commas in American dates), it would make it grammatically incorrect not to use commas (think of it like this: if the software fixed typos on the rendered version, would it be acceptable to have them?) Please remember that Wikipedia is forked, a lot of these mirrors don't use the same setup as Wikipedia (consequentially they may contain bad grammar if commas are removed). Matthew 20:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[[April 11]] [[1998]]
wouldn't work for anonymous users and for registered users with "No preference" for dates selected, but I just noticed that it magically is working for both now. I guess our developers have fixed this since the last time I checked it. ~
Jeff Q
(talk) 23:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Yes, if the proposal to eliminate commas were to be accepted, you would need to deep-six the first comma in this line:
[[February 17]], [[1958]]
will be rendered as either “February 17, 1958” or “17 February 1958”.[[17 February]] [[1958]]
will be rendered as either “February 17, 1958” or “17 February 1958”.This is a storm in a teacup. Personally, I prefer to eliminate commas in wikidates, because the software automatically formats them correctly. However, I would be opposed to making this compulsory, simply because it's not something that is worth enforcing. American editors are going to use a comma, because to them that is the way things are, and very few of them are going to bother hunting down the MOS or the various discussions. As to forks, let the forks look after themselves. -- Pete 03:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If linking of all dates was mandatory the above comma/no comma problems would be rendered pointless by the autoformat, with the added addition that registered users who had bothered to set their date preferences would see dates displayed in their chosen format, all registered users benefit regardless of their chosen national date format. - X201 18:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with the current restriction never to pluralize imperial units. While I understand metric units are not pluralized in their abbreviated forms, certain imperial units are nearly always abbreviated. Particularly 10 lbs. and 100 yds. (although yards are less commonly used than pounds, the primary measurement of mass in the imperial system). In mainstream American writing, I never see 200 lb. but rather 200 lbs. Some examples are: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] This is not advocacy to adopt a US-centric style, but since the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar are the only countries still using the imperials system, any article in English Wikipedia that does include pounds should abbreviate it as lbs. Talmage 00:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Unlike many guidelines, this one is comprehensive, simple to understand, and simple to apply. Plural symbols for some units, in some circumstances would be complicated. It would effectively end the guideline. I would rather delete the guideline.
I presume we are only discussing within-parentheses and within-tables. One method of thinking about a problem is to invert it. Instead of asking the question where is lbs acceptable, invert it and ask where is lb unacceptable.
Lightmouse 12:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It's been over a clause I added to the very last section "Submanuals" (after posting the proposal at talk to no response, mind you):
Where a discrepancy arises between the text of this manual and that of a submanual, the former prevails.
The arguments for this clause are set out in detail on talk. I'm alerting my colleagues here because I think there may be support among them for better coordination between all 33 MOSs; my "discrepancy" clause is intended to encourage cross-checking and centralised discussion at MOS central when significant changes are proposed for daughter articles. It sees daughter articles as setting out greater detail rather than being separate empires.
Your thoughts? Tony 02:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The time has finally come to unveil a draft summary of the poorly named "dates and numbers" guidelines (dates are far too narrowly defined to encompass this topic). MOS central already has summaries of the important submanuals, with links to them at the subsection level. Therefore, it's inconsistent not to include this highly significant part of style at the central location. The role of the submanual, like that of others, will be to set out the topic in greater detail, tended by specialists. I'm also keen that there be more coordination between the submanuals and MOS central.
My aim is to produce a summary that:
I seek your advice and feedback on this draft over the next, say, two weeks, so that it can be refined before taking it to the talk page at MOS central. I suggest that consideration be given for using the text of the summary to improve the submanual (the which case the examples should be different).
I seek your consensus on:
Miscellaneous points:
To assist you in providing advice and feedback, I've set out the headings and subheadings of the proposal for you to add your comments on (b)–(d), with space at the top for general comments, particularly WRT (a). I expect that people will scrutinise and comment on portions at a time; please note that you can sign with four tildes at a number of locations below in the same edit. If you have no issues with a subsection, an "OK" or simply nothing might be enough.
Tony 05:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
These improvements have already made] on the basis of feedback from users. My only concern is MJCdetroit's addition of the UK to the existing list of countries (the US, Liberia and Myanmar) for which imperial units should be the main ones, with metric units in parentheses, rather than vice versa. On consulting Metrication in the United Kingdom, yes, it does appear to be a mixed bag in the UK. However, I'd still prefer the metrics to be the main units for UK-related articles. The alternative is to explicitly state that either way is acceptable for UK-related articles. MJC's edit forces imperial units to be the main ones, with which I disagree.
I can see that my line would lead to too much flak, so does anyone object if we explicitly allow both systems for UK-related articles? Tony 08:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Should a mention be made of hundred hours? As in "The attack was scheduled to start at 0700 hours"? -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
--- or put a comma or the word of between month and year. This seems to assume American style "October 25, 1976" not European style "25 October, 1976" -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Tony 01:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no acceptance of dates like 25th October? -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Years - not mentioned explicitly, but needed here (there's "Eras" in the next section). We need to add that both "BCE/CE and BC/AD are acceptable." but call for consistency, and to explain where to put "AD". PamD 08:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Supposing one is talking about the first RAF 1,000 bomber raid of WWII that occurred on night of 30/31 May 1942. How should such dates be represented given that 30 May will be inverted if linked and the option is set in the user options? -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Convenience link back to the draft summary
Billion should be expanded to mention Long and short scales, and that Wikipedia uses the short scale Billion of 109 unless it is explicitly mentioned that in a specific context that it means 1012. This is important to highlight for foreign language editors who's native system is long scale as they often work with figures from a foreign language translation an they may not be aware that in English it is usual to use the short scale. BTW UK was long scale before 1974. -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Adding Long and short scales to the "See also Magnitude prefixes and Order of magnitude." would be useful. Any reason for not using the {{ see also}}? -- Philip Baird Shearer 05:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I think a better link than Commas is Commas. -- Philip Baird Shearer 05:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the wording is silly. a "decimal point" is far clearer than "period". What is needed for those editors from Decimal separator#Comma countries that in English a decimal point is used between the between the integral and the fractional parts of a decimal, and that a comma is used symbol as the thousands separator. And probably a mention that when a number in numerical is taken from a non English language source that care is taken with the translation of the decimal seperator and the thousands separator. -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Convenience link back to the draft summary
The UK needs removing from the first bullet point -- Philip Baird Shearer 14:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Partial dates seems to have become misplaced under this section heading.
It's a section I found bemusing on first encounter, and still feel is unclear. "Dates which do not reflect users' preferences ...": I thought it was telling me that a user following that link would end up at a page other than where s/he wanted to go. It's all very negative. Could usefully all be scrapped, replaced by the couple of sentences explaining how User Preferences affect day/month dates, which I've just seen elsewhere ... ah yes, it's your "Autoformatting and linking" proposal, which seems sensible, thanks. PamD 16:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)