![]() | 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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
I propose two changes to the numbers section. First, move the general comments about numbers to the top, before the comments on large numbers - seems more logical that way. Second, update the general comments section as follows. The comment that "some users prefer to spell out one to ten" is not helpful in a Manual of Style. We should be bold and have a standard. I suggest the following which is common in many manuals of style.
"In the body of an article, numbers from zero to ten should be spelt out as one, two, three, etc. Numbers greater than ten should use numerals. An exception is for multiple groups of numbered items in the same sentence - use the same format for like items, e.g. "They were seated in chairs ten and eleven in rows 5 through 15". In tables or other lists, numerals would generally be used for all numbers. It is considered awkward for a numeral to be the first word of a sentence: either recast the sentence or spell the number out. A consistent approach is required within each article. " Rillian 13:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-05-26 14:13Z
Here are the relevant sections from the APA manual
Rillian 14:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Here are some notes from the The OAH Magazine of History Style Sheet
1. Whole numbers. Whole numbers from one through ninety-nine are spelled out in ordinary text, as well as any of these numbers followed by hundred, thousand, million, etc. The same general principle is applied to ordinal as well as cardinal numbers. 2. Consistency. Numbers applicable to the same category should be treated alike within the same context, whether paragraph or series of paragraphs. Do not use figures for some and spell out others. (E.g., "The population of Gary, Indiana, grew from 10,000 to 175,000 in only thirty years.) Rillian 14:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I generally approve of the recent addition that was made in relation to this matter. Small numbers are often like crass little blops in a sentence, and WP has far too many of them. (Except that it might be one to nine spelt out, not one to ten.) Tony 16:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
This proposal is absolutely correct and should be implemented. - Centrx 22:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
To be added?:
-- Centrx 18:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Since the above paragraph is the result of agreement in the rest of this section and no one has objected to it, I will add it. It is still closer to what you propose than the current styleguide. -- Centrx 04:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-06-12 05:19Z
Would someone point me to the discussion about removing the following two formats from the page:
Otherwise, I suppose we are to restore. -- User:Docu
At the beginning of biographies, there are several variations to add a second spelling, e.g. ( Russian: Влади́мир Влади́мирович Пу́тин) to Vladimir Putin. From some of the solutions used:
Which one is the optimal or preferred one? Which other ones are in use? -- User:Docu
I’m certain that a non-breaking space is required between the number value and the unit if the unit is abbreviated, but is it required when the unit is not abbreviated? For example, is the
in 50 centimetres
necessary? --
HeteroZellous
19:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
to prevent a premature devaluation. --
Alias Flood
02:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Understood. Thanks everyone. -- HeteroZellous 10:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear: the SI defining standard ISO-31 does not require a non-breaking space between the number and the unit symbol. It specifies a normal blank. − Woodstone 14:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The standard states "a space is always used to separate the unit from the number". This is true both for symbols (they are never called abbreviations) and written out names. There is no explicit mention of non-breaking. In their own documentation, I found by peeking at the source, they are not really consistent, but often use the html "nobr" tag, like in <nobr>123 km</nobr> to keep number and unit together. However this does not seem to work on wikipedia. − Woodstone 21:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The <nobr> tag is no longer standard HTML. It has been superseded by the non-breaking space entity. — Gulliver ✉ 00:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
and <span style="white-space: nowrap;">...</span>
. —
Gulliver
✉
12:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)At least in the case of "lb" versus "lbs", it seems to be an AE/ BE issue (I haven't yet found an unequivocal statement yet, but googling various combinations, and especially comparing US [1] and UK [2] dictionaries seems to reflect a BE/AE diff), so saying 'only "lb" is correct', and people routinely making that 'correction', doesn't seem compatible with 'all forms of English are welcome on Wikipedia' and related guidelines. 24.18.215.132 23:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
<moved further down for additional comments on July 14, 2006> -- User:Docu
One of the example sentences was changed by Hardern for standardization purposes. The original sentence starts off in the metric system (English system) than switches to English (metric). I believe that this was originally done to show the look in both systems. The problem was is that one would probably never see a sentence structured in such a way. It wasn't the best example, so Hardern and later Woodstone changed the sentence so that it read: Use digits and unit symbols for values in parentheses and for measurements in tables. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long". For clarity's sake and to show the reverse, I added: "or a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long", at the end of the example sentence.— MJCdetroit 03:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
We have a variety of symbols for squares and cubes of units. Metric units are easy. Where it says 'sq km', I either expand it to 'square kilometre' or 'square kilometer' or I make it a symbol 'km²'.
However, non-metric units are less easy. I don't usually worry but mixing styles is inconsistent. For example the US state infobox e.g. Montana pairs 'km²' with 'sq mi'. I would not like to resolve the inconsistency by going to the language dependent form 'sq km'. In other articles we see 'mi²' and 'mile²'. What do other people prefer? bobblewik 21:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of closure, can we conclude that:
Also, 'sq m' should never be used for square miles (or square metres).— MJCdetroit 12:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
What is wrong with "sq km"? Why would that be only an "Americanism"? — Centrx→ talk • 06:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
— Centrx→ talk • 20:37, 24 June 2006 (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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
I propose two changes to the numbers section. First, move the general comments about numbers to the top, before the comments on large numbers - seems more logical that way. Second, update the general comments section as follows. The comment that "some users prefer to spell out one to ten" is not helpful in a Manual of Style. We should be bold and have a standard. I suggest the following which is common in many manuals of style.
"In the body of an article, numbers from zero to ten should be spelt out as one, two, three, etc. Numbers greater than ten should use numerals. An exception is for multiple groups of numbered items in the same sentence - use the same format for like items, e.g. "They were seated in chairs ten and eleven in rows 5 through 15". In tables or other lists, numerals would generally be used for all numbers. It is considered awkward for a numeral to be the first word of a sentence: either recast the sentence or spell the number out. A consistent approach is required within each article. " Rillian 13:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-05-26 14:13Z
Here are the relevant sections from the APA manual
Rillian 14:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Here are some notes from the The OAH Magazine of History Style Sheet
1. Whole numbers. Whole numbers from one through ninety-nine are spelled out in ordinary text, as well as any of these numbers followed by hundred, thousand, million, etc. The same general principle is applied to ordinal as well as cardinal numbers. 2. Consistency. Numbers applicable to the same category should be treated alike within the same context, whether paragraph or series of paragraphs. Do not use figures for some and spell out others. (E.g., "The population of Gary, Indiana, grew from 10,000 to 175,000 in only thirty years.) Rillian 14:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I generally approve of the recent addition that was made in relation to this matter. Small numbers are often like crass little blops in a sentence, and WP has far too many of them. (Except that it might be one to nine spelt out, not one to ten.) Tony 16:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
This proposal is absolutely correct and should be implemented. - Centrx 22:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
To be added?:
-- Centrx 18:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Since the above paragraph is the result of agreement in the rest of this section and no one has objected to it, I will add it. It is still closer to what you propose than the current styleguide. -- Centrx 04:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-06-12 05:19Z
Would someone point me to the discussion about removing the following two formats from the page:
Otherwise, I suppose we are to restore. -- User:Docu
At the beginning of biographies, there are several variations to add a second spelling, e.g. ( Russian: Влади́мир Влади́мирович Пу́тин) to Vladimir Putin. From some of the solutions used:
Which one is the optimal or preferred one? Which other ones are in use? -- User:Docu
I’m certain that a non-breaking space is required between the number value and the unit if the unit is abbreviated, but is it required when the unit is not abbreviated? For example, is the
in 50 centimetres
necessary? --
HeteroZellous
19:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
to prevent a premature devaluation. --
Alias Flood
02:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Understood. Thanks everyone. -- HeteroZellous 10:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear: the SI defining standard ISO-31 does not require a non-breaking space between the number and the unit symbol. It specifies a normal blank. − Woodstone 14:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The standard states "a space is always used to separate the unit from the number". This is true both for symbols (they are never called abbreviations) and written out names. There is no explicit mention of non-breaking. In their own documentation, I found by peeking at the source, they are not really consistent, but often use the html "nobr" tag, like in <nobr>123 km</nobr> to keep number and unit together. However this does not seem to work on wikipedia. − Woodstone 21:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The <nobr> tag is no longer standard HTML. It has been superseded by the non-breaking space entity. — Gulliver ✉ 00:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
and <span style="white-space: nowrap;">...</span>
. —
Gulliver
✉
12:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)At least in the case of "lb" versus "lbs", it seems to be an AE/ BE issue (I haven't yet found an unequivocal statement yet, but googling various combinations, and especially comparing US [1] and UK [2] dictionaries seems to reflect a BE/AE diff), so saying 'only "lb" is correct', and people routinely making that 'correction', doesn't seem compatible with 'all forms of English are welcome on Wikipedia' and related guidelines. 24.18.215.132 23:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
<moved further down for additional comments on July 14, 2006> -- User:Docu
One of the example sentences was changed by Hardern for standardization purposes. The original sentence starts off in the metric system (English system) than switches to English (metric). I believe that this was originally done to show the look in both systems. The problem was is that one would probably never see a sentence structured in such a way. It wasn't the best example, so Hardern and later Woodstone changed the sentence so that it read: Use digits and unit symbols for values in parentheses and for measurements in tables. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long". For clarity's sake and to show the reverse, I added: "or a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long", at the end of the example sentence.— MJCdetroit 03:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
We have a variety of symbols for squares and cubes of units. Metric units are easy. Where it says 'sq km', I either expand it to 'square kilometre' or 'square kilometer' or I make it a symbol 'km²'.
However, non-metric units are less easy. I don't usually worry but mixing styles is inconsistent. For example the US state infobox e.g. Montana pairs 'km²' with 'sq mi'. I would not like to resolve the inconsistency by going to the language dependent form 'sq km'. In other articles we see 'mi²' and 'mile²'. What do other people prefer? bobblewik 21:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of closure, can we conclude that:
Also, 'sq m' should never be used for square miles (or square metres).— MJCdetroit 12:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
What is wrong with "sq km"? Why would that be only an "Americanism"? — Centrx→ talk • 06:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
— Centrx→ talk • 20:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)