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 50 | ← | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
Section 1.2 of Manual of Style (dates and numbers), concerns the linkage of dates that contain the months and the day in that month. I would like to propose amending this section to include the correct English day/date format.
I would like to point out that there is some major bias towards the US in this Manual of Style (as with many articles and other guides). It uses many examples of how the date is formally written or spoken, that are very rarely used in many English speaking countries other than the United States.
For Example:
The aim of this proposal is to change the way that the day and the month are written in articles, especially biographical articles. (The article on the late Steve Irwin, has a date format that hardly anyone here in Australia uses: 22 February. I changed it to 22nd of February, and someone changed it back to 22 February. My brother pronounces the word' mirror' as though he is saying 'merra', he watches alot of americanised TV. I personally, feel that I have a responsibility to ensure that 'American English' stays in the country that it originated from, just as 'Australian English' must stay in this country. I don't want American English infiltrating one of the worlds largest encyclopedias, because it is the English Wikipedia not the Polish Wikipedia, not the Japanese Wikipedia, not the American English Wikipedia, not the Australian English Wikipedia.
Proposed Changes:
It should be noted that date formats such as dd/mm/yy, mm/dd/yy, yyyy/mmm/dd, etc, are a seperate issue and not included in this proposed amendment.
Thanks for reading and lets hope we can set things straight and do things the right way. Nick carson 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Stop voting. The reasons are what counts. There is no point in just repeating what others have said. Stephen Turner's single comment is enough to prevent this proposal from being implemented. If I had made a vote and were looking back on it now, I would remove it. I really find this disgusting. — Centrx→ talk • 05:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, it's rather conceited to refer to one's preferred style as "correct", especially when one clearly has no idea what correct English is. ("Inapropriate", "hasnt", "diviated", "inaccurateness", "thats", "word'", "imploy", and "sommon" are not English words. "Lets", "later", and "your" are, but are not used correctly. Apparently the irony of declaring "Thanks for reading and lets hope we can set things straight and do things the right way" was lost on Nick. Secondly, there is no "ambiguity" in what is meant. Everyone knows what "22 February" means. According to Nick's logic, the phrase "9:15" somehow implies that this it is the fifteenth nine. "22 February" means that this is the 22nd time that it's been February this year. "22 February 2006" means it's the 22nd time it was February 2006. If one imagines each day in February as being another instance of February, then "22 February 2006" does mean "the 22nd February 2006". Thirdly, it's rather hypocritical to claim that it's wrong to write less than one expects one's audience to say, and yet write "22nd". After all, if one expects one's audience to say "twenty-second", shouldn't one write "twenty-second? If someone reads "22nd" and says "twenty-second", isn't that "making things up"? And if one allows "twenty-second February" with the understanding that it should be interpreted as "twenty-second day of February", then it seems to me that one should be okay with just "22 February". If it's okay to leave one thing implicit, why is it not okay to leave the other? All language, to some extent or another, is metaphoric. There is one matter, however, on which we share a similar view. "Mirror" has two syllables, not one. Flarity 02:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed this in an article: June 9 ( Old Style)/ June 19 (New Style), 1619. Is it really necessary to link dates when they are in this complex sort or format? Rmhermen 02:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
When using an American-style date in the middle of a sentence, which would be correct:
(The difference is the comma between the year and the subsequent word.) Omphaloscope talk 15:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It isn't even really a separate rule, it's just that for some reason, people don't seem to realize that dates, like other qualifying phrases, require commas. Take, for instance, the sentence "In 2006, John bowled a perfect game." Now replace "In 2006" with another phrase: "In Denver, John bowled a perfect game", "While wearing a clown suit, John bowled a perfect game", "Setting a new personal best, John bowled a perfect game", "On Tuesday, John bowled a perfect game". The need for a comma isn't really created by the date so much as the fact that it's a separate clause; any other separate clause would also need a comma. Flarity 02:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The discussion below was moved from Village Pump
I notice that most articles in Wikipedia still make use of the emperial standards. An example would be
Carol Yager. For any persons unfamiliar to emperial standards, the article is useless.
Arguably, this is because the USA still retains the emperial system, being one of only 3 countries not adopting the system. See Metrication
All other countries use the metric system and as Wikipedia is targeted at the whole world, I believe it is important that only metric standards be used, at least in addition to the emperial standards.
I did not find any reference to this important aspects.
"My car gets forty rods to a hog's head, and that's the way I likes it!" Kidding aside, I say simply remain consistent within a medium. If measurements for a subject are commonly given in imperial units, then that's what should be used. I like the "hover" idea, as well. – Someguy0830 ( Talk | contribs) 18:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Use both. In that specific case, I would say metric first makes the most sense, because that's the measurement that you say is the directly verifiable one. x km (y miles) -- tjstrf 21:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The discussion above was moved from the Village pump
Actually, the issue is adressed quite nicely on the page:
In other words, cyclic rounding should never happen, because you use the sourced value as the primary. If the original was in metric, you will use the metric, with the imperial as a paranthetical converted unit. Reffing the measurements would be good, of course. -- tjstrf 20:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Nanometers are used in the U.S., too. It's angstroms we could do without, since they only involve a decimal point shift for someone who insists on using obsolete units. But if you are talking about the other "nm", including the conversions helps to identify what that ambiguous symbol is, without wondering why they are using nanometers in that particular context. That's only part of the reason for using them, of course. Gene Nygaard 03:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
For some amusing and instructive examples of what can go wrong when converting units, see this. Scroll down to the image of the kid holding the giant ruler. -- Donald Albury 11:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second.
Put the source value first and the converted value second unless there exists a compelling reason to choose another sequence of units.
Put the source value first and the converted value second unless editors agree that there exists a compelling reason to choose another sequence of units.
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 50 | ← | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
Section 1.2 of Manual of Style (dates and numbers), concerns the linkage of dates that contain the months and the day in that month. I would like to propose amending this section to include the correct English day/date format.
I would like to point out that there is some major bias towards the US in this Manual of Style (as with many articles and other guides). It uses many examples of how the date is formally written or spoken, that are very rarely used in many English speaking countries other than the United States.
For Example:
The aim of this proposal is to change the way that the day and the month are written in articles, especially biographical articles. (The article on the late Steve Irwin, has a date format that hardly anyone here in Australia uses: 22 February. I changed it to 22nd of February, and someone changed it back to 22 February. My brother pronounces the word' mirror' as though he is saying 'merra', he watches alot of americanised TV. I personally, feel that I have a responsibility to ensure that 'American English' stays in the country that it originated from, just as 'Australian English' must stay in this country. I don't want American English infiltrating one of the worlds largest encyclopedias, because it is the English Wikipedia not the Polish Wikipedia, not the Japanese Wikipedia, not the American English Wikipedia, not the Australian English Wikipedia.
Proposed Changes:
It should be noted that date formats such as dd/mm/yy, mm/dd/yy, yyyy/mmm/dd, etc, are a seperate issue and not included in this proposed amendment.
Thanks for reading and lets hope we can set things straight and do things the right way. Nick carson 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Stop voting. The reasons are what counts. There is no point in just repeating what others have said. Stephen Turner's single comment is enough to prevent this proposal from being implemented. If I had made a vote and were looking back on it now, I would remove it. I really find this disgusting. — Centrx→ talk • 05:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, it's rather conceited to refer to one's preferred style as "correct", especially when one clearly has no idea what correct English is. ("Inapropriate", "hasnt", "diviated", "inaccurateness", "thats", "word'", "imploy", and "sommon" are not English words. "Lets", "later", and "your" are, but are not used correctly. Apparently the irony of declaring "Thanks for reading and lets hope we can set things straight and do things the right way" was lost on Nick. Secondly, there is no "ambiguity" in what is meant. Everyone knows what "22 February" means. According to Nick's logic, the phrase "9:15" somehow implies that this it is the fifteenth nine. "22 February" means that this is the 22nd time that it's been February this year. "22 February 2006" means it's the 22nd time it was February 2006. If one imagines each day in February as being another instance of February, then "22 February 2006" does mean "the 22nd February 2006". Thirdly, it's rather hypocritical to claim that it's wrong to write less than one expects one's audience to say, and yet write "22nd". After all, if one expects one's audience to say "twenty-second", shouldn't one write "twenty-second? If someone reads "22nd" and says "twenty-second", isn't that "making things up"? And if one allows "twenty-second February" with the understanding that it should be interpreted as "twenty-second day of February", then it seems to me that one should be okay with just "22 February". If it's okay to leave one thing implicit, why is it not okay to leave the other? All language, to some extent or another, is metaphoric. There is one matter, however, on which we share a similar view. "Mirror" has two syllables, not one. Flarity 02:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed this in an article: June 9 ( Old Style)/ June 19 (New Style), 1619. Is it really necessary to link dates when they are in this complex sort or format? Rmhermen 02:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
When using an American-style date in the middle of a sentence, which would be correct:
(The difference is the comma between the year and the subsequent word.) Omphaloscope talk 15:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It isn't even really a separate rule, it's just that for some reason, people don't seem to realize that dates, like other qualifying phrases, require commas. Take, for instance, the sentence "In 2006, John bowled a perfect game." Now replace "In 2006" with another phrase: "In Denver, John bowled a perfect game", "While wearing a clown suit, John bowled a perfect game", "Setting a new personal best, John bowled a perfect game", "On Tuesday, John bowled a perfect game". The need for a comma isn't really created by the date so much as the fact that it's a separate clause; any other separate clause would also need a comma. Flarity 02:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The discussion below was moved from Village Pump
I notice that most articles in Wikipedia still make use of the emperial standards. An example would be
Carol Yager. For any persons unfamiliar to emperial standards, the article is useless.
Arguably, this is because the USA still retains the emperial system, being one of only 3 countries not adopting the system. See Metrication
All other countries use the metric system and as Wikipedia is targeted at the whole world, I believe it is important that only metric standards be used, at least in addition to the emperial standards.
I did not find any reference to this important aspects.
"My car gets forty rods to a hog's head, and that's the way I likes it!" Kidding aside, I say simply remain consistent within a medium. If measurements for a subject are commonly given in imperial units, then that's what should be used. I like the "hover" idea, as well. – Someguy0830 ( Talk | contribs) 18:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Use both. In that specific case, I would say metric first makes the most sense, because that's the measurement that you say is the directly verifiable one. x km (y miles) -- tjstrf 21:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The discussion above was moved from the Village pump
Actually, the issue is adressed quite nicely on the page:
In other words, cyclic rounding should never happen, because you use the sourced value as the primary. If the original was in metric, you will use the metric, with the imperial as a paranthetical converted unit. Reffing the measurements would be good, of course. -- tjstrf 20:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Nanometers are used in the U.S., too. It's angstroms we could do without, since they only involve a decimal point shift for someone who insists on using obsolete units. But if you are talking about the other "nm", including the conversions helps to identify what that ambiguous symbol is, without wondering why they are using nanometers in that particular context. That's only part of the reason for using them, of course. Gene Nygaard 03:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
For some amusing and instructive examples of what can go wrong when converting units, see this. Scroll down to the image of the kid holding the giant ruler. -- Donald Albury 11:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second.
Put the source value first and the converted value second unless there exists a compelling reason to choose another sequence of units.
Put the source value first and the converted value second unless editors agree that there exists a compelling reason to choose another sequence of units.