Misplaced Pages

talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:50, 16 January 2008 editOmegatron (talk | contribs)Administrators35,798 edits →Omegatron's recent changes to the main page involving binary prefixes← Previous edit Revision as of 16:13, 16 January 2008 edit undoFnagaton (talk | contribs)3,957 edits →Omegatron's recent changes to the main page involving binary prefixesNext edit →
Line 2,808: Line 2,808:


Please try to edit productively and cooperatively. If you continue ] without justification, you'll be blocked. — ] 15:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Please try to edit productively and cooperatively. If you continue ] without justification, you'll be blocked. — ] 15:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:You go far beyond fixing spells errors or other such sontent in the guideine, you removed parts which effect the content and meaning of the guideline and you did not discuss those changes. Do not make threats of "blocking" just because you want to push through your edits that do not have consensus. You are the person who is acting against consensus here and you are at fault. I revert you because you do not have consensus to make those changes, that is also correct justification. If you continue to edit war I will report you for 3RR violation. ''']]''' 16:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:13, 16 January 2008

Archiving icon
Archives
General Binary prefixes Years and dates See also

editArchive
Years and dates archives

Proposal to merge this page with MOS

It was only a matter of time since most of MOSNUM was pasted into MOS central that the question of what to do with this submanual should come up. The disadvantage in keeping both separate, or in removing what are, IMO, sections that are too important not to be at MOS, is that regular housecleaning is required to harmonise the duplicated sections; and that valuable discussions here are isolated from the broader MOS community.

There are four options, as far as I can see.

  1. Delete this page wholly, moving the remaining sections that are not duplicated to MOS. This is the quick and dirty way, except that some of the unduplicated sections might be regarded as too abstruse or, indeed, unstable, for inclusion in MOS.
  2. Delete this page wholly and create in its place three new submanuals: Magnitude prefixes, Geographical coordinates, and a merger of Old_Style_and_New_Style_dates and MOSNUM's "Calendars" section, with links at MOS to these submanuals. The autoformatting and links section belongs in the newly reorganised Links section at MOS.
  3. Keep this page and remove the duplication from MOS.
  4. Keep the status quo.

Comments? Tony (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • You forgot
3. Keep this page and remove the duplication from the main page.
Gene Nygaard 05:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As an editor I like this page the way it is (I do not see myself taking an active interest in MOS - it's too broad for me). On the other hand, I can see the advantage to the *reader* in incorporating the MOSNUM text in the main manual, but maintaining a faithful duplicate in MOS sounds like a thankless task. I suggest the following compromise:
  • Keep this page as a master MOSNUM
  • Paste its contents at periodic intervals into MOS, discarding any interim edits that may have taken place in the relevant sub-section, which I will call NUM@MOS
  • Insert a warning in NUM@MOS to discourage edits made directly there, explaining that the master is held at MOSNUM
Thunderbird2 18:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 3a. Remove the bulk of the duplicated material at MOS, and just summarize the key, most common issues there, and prominently direct people to MOSNUM for more detail. I agree with Tony1 that the MOSNUM content at MOS is just too much, and too hard to maintain in synch with the real MOSNUM (and add a further point that we have generally been treating MOS as trumping its subguidelines, which can present problems when MOSNUM does something smart and MOS isn't updated to go along with it), but I also agree with Thunderbird2 that we need to keep general editors in mind, not just editors of the MOS pages; MOS should cover the basics in sufficient detail to be useful to the average editor of a page about a video game, rock band or feline species. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 19:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
That’s exactly what should have happened (and I tried in an overly bold way) when MOSNUM content was partly reincorporated into MOS few months ago: only key rules (shoulds, we don’t have musts) without exceptions (mays) and overly specific details. I fear this is not (though hope it is) feasible, because even if we cut it down now, there’ll be people who consider their pet exception to be too important not to be on the main MOS, and so the excerpt will grow back again into an inconsistent twin. Christoph Päper (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer it if there were no duplication. Each guideline would only exist in one place. I would be prepared to accept larger pages if we could reduce the number of pages and duplicated content.
My second preference would be for no double editing. Each guideline would only be editable in one place and read-only in any other place. I do not know if we have the technology to support this but I have seen something like it with a template.
We could review duplication and large content across the whole of the manual and submanuals. For example, links are addressed in at least two important places.
If a piece of guidance does not address a significant problem, if it will not have an effect on the editors that cause the problem, or if it would have been eventually solved by the wiki, then it is not adding value. Lightmouse 20:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the duplication is undesirable. However, the reason that much of MOSNUM was duplicated in MOS is that its content is so important for general editors. Having information on dates and numbers sequestered over here discourages people from consulting it, and separates expert discussions from the mainstream at MOS talk. I see no problem in making MOS very large—larger than it already is. The normal considerations of size for articles are to do with the readability of a topic. The purpose of MOS is not as an entire read-through document, but as a resource for specific consultation via the ToC. Summarising MOSNUM at MOS will further discourage editors from coming here ("I've looked at numbers in MOS, so that's clearly the important stuff—I don't need to treck to MOSNUM before nominating my FAC"—no, the devil is in the detail for our topic). To provide mere links to MOSNUM downgrades the importance of our topic for those who go to MOS: that is inescapable. Tony (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, we can't just throw up our hands about this. MOSNUM needs to have its most important points summarized in MOS, while having MOS make it very clear, in each place, that people needs to see MOSNUM for the devilish details. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 08:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I like SMcCandlish's proposal better than my own. Thunderbird2 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree. I think that just looking at the edit history for MOSNUM and the talk page shows this isn't a sleepy backwater but is instead a vibrant very much alive section. Fnagaton 16:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I too like SMcCandlish's thinking on this matter. —MJCdetroit (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I am a dyed-in-the-wool centralist. That is, I am one who prefers to see guidelines collected in one place, so that they can be maintained efficiently and kept free of inconsistencies, and so that editors can find the guidance they're looking for without a time-wasting chase that may still end in uncertainty. So of course I support moves like Tony's to diminish the role of MOS's "satellites". I support merging some of them into MOS; but reluctantly I accept that this can't be achieved for all of them.
I therefore agree with SMcCandlish, too. In this case, and perhaps a few others, the satellites need to be brought into a closer orbit around MOS; MOS should summarise recommendations crisply, and where necessary and refer editors to the detail at the relevant satellite. We must then work to coordinate and rationalise discussion at the various talk pages that are involved. This will be much easier if they are few, and if all of them are known about by all editors involved in developing MOS guidelines. This is certainly not how things are right now.
– Noetica Talk 03:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Linking full dates

There has been a conflict at Talk:Swedish language over the linking of retrieval dates of web references specified in footnotes and has lead to rather pointless low-intensity revert war. The problem in my view is that linking any date that happens to appear in an article, whether it's relevant to the topic or not, isn't helpful to readers. The arguments for linking all dates have thus far concentrated on the wording of the various guidelines and the fact that it has to do with formatting, not linking per se. Personally, I think the general wording of the guidelines (and the fact that they're guidelines, not policy) is enough to allow obvious exceptions, but apparantly some users feel that this might actually require changing the guidelines.

Peter 13:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make here but my understanding of your position as expressed at Talk:Swedish language is that you are opposed to date wikilinking, EXCEPT where the date has direct relevance to the article in question. That seems like a reasonable principle to me. As I said at SL Talk, when I first came to wiki it took me quite a while to realize the date wikilinks had no relationship to the article, it was pretty annoying, and I think it's bad practice. Date wikilinking for the handful of people who want to use date preferences does not seem to me to be a valid reason to sprinkle every article in wikipedia with useless and irrelevant links.
BTW Peter I think you'd be better off opening this discussion at Village Pump Policy, as I've found these individual policy pages in general get very little traffic. Gatoclass (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have a script that unlinks all date fragments (solitary years, solitary months etc). I think full dates should not be linked either but the script leaves full dates linked in accordance with guidance. It is easy to use. Feel free to use it directly or take pieces of code from it. Ask at my talk page if you want to know more. Lightmouse (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think linking full dates so that they auto-format is important. I like having all dates converted to my preferred format, and good God, I don't want to imagine the edit wars between the DD-MM-YYYY and the MM-DD-YYYY camps, not to mention the ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD guys, if we stop auto-formatting. TomTheHand (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
But how many people actually use those formats? Almost all the dates I come across are in the form day month year, or month day year ie 5 January 1985, or January 5 1985 - and few people care which of those two are used. Gatoclass (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
While it is unquestionable that auto-formatting provides some benefit, the manner in which is implemented incurs some disadvantages. The vast majority of readers won't see any benefit and can (as have been noted) be confused by the seemingly irrelevant links. As for edit wars, I suspect they could be handled in a similar manner to variations in spelling. Consistency within an article and standardization of the format should be done in any case, since so few users (I suspect no more than a few thousands) will see the dates autoformatted. henrik•talk 15:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with those that think it is time for a change. The concept of autoformatting is fine but the design and implementation has created a cure that is worse than the disease. Furthermore, those of us that do not have the disease have to take the cure and accept the nasty side-effects.
Confused editors make many errors (e.g. ]). Some errors make articles unreadable for those that use autoformatting e.g. by creating the format: '15 November-18'. We should abandon this design. In the short term, we need a bot that is fast and comprehensive enough to find and fix the many errors. Lightmouse (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that I'm the only editor who frequently goes between languages and countries, where different date formats are used in the different sources I read, so yes, date formatting to allow for user preferences is essential for clarity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that anything needs to be changed until the autoformatting can be implemented without the wikilinks. Confused editors make many errors, and changing guidelines will not help that, nor will confusion or other side effects (whatever they are) be lessened; there will be only a loss of the benefit provided by auto-formatting. (See also WP:OVERLINK#Dates.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Either most of the responders here have missed the point of the original post, or maybe I have. It seems to be asking about linking full dates in footnotes, especially those that specify retrieval dates. Although I favor autoformatting of dates in the running text in the body of an article, I am not convinced it's needed in the footnotes. As long as those dates are in a consistent fixed format within that article, I'm happy. People who are analyzing the references will probably not be impeded much by dates that are not autoformatted to their liking. And I don't think the original post here was trying to instigate an uprising against autoformatting in general, so calm down, please. Chris the speller (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any disadvantage to autoformatting dates in footnotes (at least, no disadvantages that are footnote-specific). I don't know why footnotes would be an exception. TomTheHand (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Since Wiki automatically links *most* dates in citation templates, consistent display of dates according to user preferences for all readers requires that those not in cite templates be linked, or you end up with a gibberish of dates in differing formats, which makes a difference when you're reading an article about a country that uses one format with source that use another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Chris, your summary reflects the issues presented in the discussion at Talk:Swedish language, but it does not reflect the way Peter framed the issue when he opened this thread. He did, in fact, raise the more general point here of whether dates should be linked: The problem in my view is that linking any date that happens to appear in an article, whether it's relevant to the topic or not, isn't helpful to readers. I would agree with that assessment if we had an autoformatting mechanism that worked without wikilinking the dates, but we don't. Hell, I would also favor picking a default format and applying it to wikilinked dates when unregistered users are viewing an article. It would be a monumental headache to enforce consistency in date formats without any autoformatting mechanism at all, so I certainly don't see that as a solution, because I do value consistent formatting (not just for dates). --Tkynerd (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Some months ago, I decided to encourage WPians not to use the autoformatting function, because it is dysfunctional in several key ways. The arguments appear in the archives of this talk page and elsewhere. A move signed by 85 WPians to ask Bugzilla to FIX the biggest problem—the entanglement with the linking functionality—has thus far failed; this is more reason to discourage its use and put up with the several major formattings for dates, just as we do the varieties of spelling. Tony (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Boycotting the function makes sense for those reasons, but when some dates are formatted, all dates should be formatted for consistency according to user preferences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Boycotting the autoformat feature in order to convince the devs to fix it sounds awfully POINTy to me. TomTheHand (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with TomTheHand; in addition, I'd like to know more about this move to get developers to fix this, but I don't think their decision (if it's actually a decision rather than just prioritizing other development needs) is a good reason to ignore the guidelines. --Tkynerd (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
No, you're wrong: I'm not trying to make a point in discouraging people from using the dysfunctional system. I'm discouraging people from using a dysfunctional system. MOSNUM says that it is "normally" used. Well, sorry, it's not normal to persist with such a dysfunctional system. End of story. Tony (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC) PS Here are the links to the Bugzilla thing: and . Here is the petition: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_D1#A_new_parallel_syntax_for_autoformatting_dates. Tony (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the import of the word "normally" in that guideline. It obviously does not mean that using wikilinking to autoformat dates is a "normal" method of doing so, or that it is ideal or functional; it means that full dates should normally be entered by editors in such a way that the MediaWiki software will autoformat them. If the developers change the method by which this is done in the MediaWiki software, the last half of the sentence (which explains the method) will need to change, but the first portion (which includes the word "normally") will not, even if the developers choose to implement date autoformatting that requires editors to precede each date with a random number that will change every day. The point is simply this: full dates are normally autoformatted. Your argument is pharisaical at best. --Tkynerd (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
As long as MOS continues to recommend the wikilinking of full dates for user preferences date formatting purposes, this should be done across-the-board, including in reference citations, otherwise it is inconsistent and undermines the concept of date formatting. That is happens to be in a ref citation instead of an infobox or a prose paragraph is irrelevant. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 06:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It undermines MOS to recommend a dysfunctional system. It says that MOS "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense". I'm using common sense, and will continue to advise WPians not to autoformat. Tony (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I am with Tony on this. Editors keep adding errors that break autoformatting (e.g. piped year links in full dates, date ranges that become '5 November-6', ], '5th November'). If there was any real enthusiasm for autoformatting, then high speed bots would fix these errors faster than editors make them. I don't believe people actually care much about whether autoformatting breaks, it merely exists as an answer to anyone that complains about dates just as we have an answer to the 'color/colour' conflict. Lightmouse (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we're talking past each other, T. I agree that the autoformatting system sucks, because it operator overloads the wikilinking system to serve an unrelated purpose, with very undesirable results . Last I looked, MOS (or MOSNUM, rather) advised, or was at least neutral on the idea, that complete dates should be wikilinked for autoformatting. My point above is that we are not making some special exception that reads "except in reference citations". MOS does not say that, and until this was posted here I was unaware of anyone making up that non-existent distinction. As with everything else MOSly, "be consistent within an article". If editors at an article have agreed by widespread consensus on its talk page that date autoformatting is hosed, and the article in question should not and does not use it in the article's main prose, then good for them, and don't add that formatting to ref. citations. If, as is much more probable, an article does wikilink full dates, then do so in ref citations too, and if it wikilinks partial dates, remove those links, where ever they are, since they serve no purpose at all. Hope that makes more sense. SMcCandlish (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I also have always agreed that we should have a better system as Tony proposes, but until we do, dates need to be displayed consistently according to user preferences, which means they need to be linked consistently, including in footnotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking along the same lines. While I would prefer if full dates were linked only when they were relevant (which in the case of web reference retrieval dates would mean never), I'm not going to go around campaigning in random articles by reverting the main authors on their choice of style. But this is exactly what happened in Swedish language, and used up far more talkpage space than it was ever worth.
Peter 11:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:OWN. There is no author who has special privileges to decide how an article looks. Lurker (said · done) 15:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
There is however a custom of respecting the initial author's wishes when it comes to certain things with multiple right answers and some stylistic matters, for example things such as spelling variations and measurement systems. henrik•talk 16:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
In the Swedish language article, no one has argued over the stylistic matters that you've mentioned, such as spelling variations and measurement systems. But since you brought it up, the primary author, User:Peter Isotalo, has been inconsistent with which variant of English he uses (AmE spelling vs AmE & BrE dates). –panda (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the policy should be changed so that dates that have the months spelled out are not wikilinked - because, after all, such dates can never cause confusion. I refer to date formats such as 5 July 1989 or August 9 2004. The ONLY dates that should be wikilinked are the ones in formats that can become confusing such as 05-07-1989 or 2004/08/09. Gatoclass (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Doing that would result in a mish-mash in the article and in the footnotes. Currently, dates are displayed according to user preferences no matter how they were entered by the original editor. If you link some and not others, you end up with gibberish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
There should be no dates with the months spelled out because this means that users cannot choose how these dates are displayed. Using date linking, users can choose whether they see months as numbers or spelled out. We are supposed to be here for the readers, not to impose our own views on how dates should be displayed. Lurker (said · done) 15:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, we're here for the readers, which is in my view the strongest argument to remove the date links as excessive linking disrupts the flow of reading. Practically no readers will see anything but what the editor put in the article. As the 8th most popular website in the world, maybe a hundred million people view wikipedia articles every day. There are 5 million accounts, and if 1% has set the date preferences, that's 50 000 people. Assuming 1 in 1000 readers find the links confusing or irritating, that's still twice as many people every day as those who will benefit from the date preferences. henrik•talk 16:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
That is a whole lot of highly speculative reasoning there. Just as with varieties of English, there have been considerable tedious tendentious edits to make dates display "correctly" as judged by the editor. Date preferences short-circuit such pointless disputes. Granted, perhaps there could be a better mechanism for implementing date preferences that did not involve linking, but until such a replacement is available, I don't see any reason to change the current practice. older ≠ wiser 16:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's highly speculative at all, I think that assuming only 1% of casual users find the date links annoying would be a considerable underestimate. I would guess a majority of casual users would find date wikilinking annoying, because they are not privy to the esoteric function behind it. Most people will quite justifiably assume that if there's a link on the page it's because the link goes somewhere useful and relevant, and are bound to be irritated to find it doesn't. By contrast, the number of people who actually know about date preferences, let alone make use of it, must be miniscule by comparison. Gatoclass (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the figures I used are indeed pure speculation. I could very well be off by an order of magnitude in either direction. But I simply tried to illustrate the point that we have many more readers than editors with date preferences set. henrik•talk 19:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
From the point of view of the casual reader unless a survey is done we will not know if linking dates is annoying. But what we can guarantee is that dates in the form of DD MM YYYY and MM DD YYYY will be misunderstood by a lot of people. What is worse if they have read one article general article with which they have some knowledge that uses MM DD YYYY and contains a date they know and then follow a link to another page, for example a biography of a person mentioned in a general article, and if that uses the other numerical format then they are almost bound to get it wrong. At least with DD MONTH YYY or MONTH DD, YYYY, linked or not they may find one format jarring to look at, but they will not get the date wrong. With spelling one can tell (or assume that those dumb Misplaced Pages authors don't know how to spell), but with numeric dates readers have no way of knowing at a glance what format the date is in and this can easily be misleading, particularly those who have not had much exposure to English written by those who write in a different English dialect. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
How does linking dates in the notes/references disrupt the flow of reading? They're not included in the normal flow of text that someone would read. –panda (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
In notes/references sections, it creates a huge, ugly blue mess. Tony (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
In notes/references, unlinked dates create an ugly mess of different date formats entered by different editors. You end up with something like:
  • Article name, BBC, 2006-01-10. Retrieved on September 5, 2007.
  • Article name, BBC, March 5, 2005. Accessed 2006-05-04.
And, is that October 1 or January 10? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the bug in which implementing date syntax independent of linking is discussed: . -- PatLeahy (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

For those who treated me as though I had 3 heads for reading the original question as pertaining to dates in references/footnotes, take note of these: 1) The {{Cite web}} template recommends this format: "cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=2007-12-09 |format= |work= ", and this date format does not conform to this guideline. 2) The edit war on the Swedish language article switches between British-style dates (but not linked, as the guidelines call for) and ISO-style dates, which do not conform to this guideline. These 2 editors, after completely ignoring this guideline, come to this talk page for resolution. Here it is: follow the guideline, using wikilinked British-style or American-style dates. Chris the speller (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Not following, Chris the speller; the cite web template automatically links the accessdate parameter; it does follow this guideline. The full date is automatically linked so user preferences work. It doesn't automatically link the date parameter unless a full date is entered, because the date is not always a full date (could be only a year or a month-year combo). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the spirit of what you've written; I just want to point out that even ISO-style dates are formatted correctly (for registered users) if they are wikilinked. That obviously doesn't solve the problem of formatting for unregistered users, though. --Tkynerd (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, ISO-style dates do autoformat correctly, but the guideline discourages them, except that they "may be useful in long lists ...", so is a collection of footnotes a list? Apparently the people who maintain the Cite web template think so, but McCandlish feels that dates in footnotes should get the same handling as dates in the running text of the body. I don't think the ISO dates give any advantage, since the elements of the footnotes don't fall into vertical alignment anyway. What I do know is that if the guideline had been followed for all dates in the Swedish article (all as linked British-style dates), there would have been no edit war. Chris the speller (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Chris, no one has said a single word about any inconsistency between spelling and date standards over at Talk:Swedish language. The arguments have consistently been to link or not to link full dates, including the retrieval dates of web refs. If you think applying American-style dates (without the linkage) would solve the issue, you're welcome to try your hand at it.
Peter 03:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Peter, what are you talking about? I never mentioned spelling. Perhaps you took my user name too literally. And I didn't mention the discussion that's on that talk page. I mentioned the edit warring, in which I saw Lurker (2 days ago) changing from unlinked British-style dates to linked ISO-style dates. And I don't "think applying American-style dates (without the linkage) would solve the issue". I know that using linked British-style dates (or, if you prefer, American) would solve it. But no, I'm not going to join in the edit war. In one of your edit summaries, you mentioned that there is no consensus on that article to switch formats. If there is no consensus by the editors of an article to depart from the guideline, then there's no reason not to follow the guideline. Chris the speller (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, consistent formatting of dates was brought up on 27 November 2007 and 28 November 2007 in Talk:Swedish language. –panda (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Dates should be consistently formatted in the article and in the footnotes so that user preferences work on display. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
panda, there was not a peep in there about mixing American spelling and British date formatting, but rather the insistance that this should be achieved with wikilinking. No one ever opposed consistent date formats in the article.
Peter 10:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Is that why I specifically stated: "Regarding inconsistent dates, you have used both day-month-year and month-day-year, which is not consistent"? –panda (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at Swedish language, and saw only one problem in the footnotes, here:

  • Aronsson, Cecilia Norrländska låter bäst (Swedish) Dagens Industri 2005-05-03. Retrieved on August 24, 2007.

That's ugly; is that all this is about? And is that May 3 or March 5? The external jumps in the text (see WP:EL) are gone, too, so it looks like some progress is being made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

    • Oops, I see I was wrong on the External jumps, and they're still there, making the article look like a blog or a collection of links (see WP:NOT, WP:EL). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I reverted that change because I saw absolutely no point in simply adding an additional click for anyone who wanted to check out those links. They're not sources, but caveats that are clearly explained in the preceding paragraph. Did you even read that paragraph? Did you follow the links? I would really appreciate if you tried not to apply the MoS so darned rigidly all the time. And I find your likening the article to a blog because of a few external links to be pretty darned condescending. Peter 09:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sandy, just like using one variety of spelling consistently within an article, I don't see what is so hard about formatting dates consistently within an article, and dispensing with this ugly, problematic linking entanglement. Don't forget that 99% of readers have to put up with all of the disadvantages of the inflexible bright-blue splotches with no benefit. In fact, they're quite likely to see inconsistent formatting in an article, since when the self-chosen few who set their preference edit articles, they don't care what format they add, forgetting that most readers won't see the autoformatting. Tony (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sandy, with all due respect to your efforts to uphold consistency, none of the problems you bring up here have to be solved with wikilinking. It might come as a shock to those favoring this particular solution, but it is actually possible to format dates consistently in the same way you achieve spelling consistency: you simply edit the text like any normal prose without having to resort to template dinkiness and other technocratic methods. As hinted by Tony, Swedish language is now currently displaying the wikilinked ISO-style dates as YYYY-MM-DD to the overwhelming majority of our readers (who logged in). Peter 10:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Full dates need to be linked so that readers' preferences will work. Obviously it would be better if another way of correctly doing this could be found, but, until then, what's to argue about? --John (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm completely misreading this, I think that the point is that we are not in a position to necessarily accept what the developers provide if it does not suit what our needs are, and that we can in effect reject a developer-provided solution by deprecating its usage. That said, I think it would be major faux pas to pursue this issue very far along those lines. A certain amount of rebellion gets the point across, while an excessive amount will make us look like shitheads. We need to get the "this just really does NOT work" point across in a way that is not antagonistic to developers who have really worked hard to implement what was in fact asked of them. The WP community, not the coders, is at fault on this one. We collectively asked for a simple but in retrospect rather boneheaded fix. If we are now asking for a better one, some contrition is in order on our part. I.e. Please fix this, like thus, because we didn't ask for the right solution the first time. The MW developers didn't screw this up; we did. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 09:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I certainly didn't screw it up, and probably most or all of the developers weren't there at the time this folly was perpetrated. I'm just irritated by the response until recently by Brion Vibber, the developer who seems to have been presiding over the issue (Bug 4582). His original rejoinder was:

was done in part to encourage linking of dates so they can be used as useful metadata.(1 December 2006)

Um ... right. Perhaps Brion is taking the issue more seriously now. His latest post is more encouraging:

My personal recommendation would be to remove all date

autoformatting and let a sane manual of style recommend the fairly standard international English form, eg '4 December 2008'. Of course that's too simple

and obvious for Misplaced Pages. ;) (4 December 2007)

Tony (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Another reason to support user preference/autoformatting of dates is WP:CSB. Having an MOS "consensus" decide on one format (be it American, non-American, ISO 8601, or maybe even NATO DTG) would result in some sort of systemic bias and general WP:NPOV problem. Better to fix the user preferences technology than to waste it. Perhaps it's time to raise this at WP:VP/T, and escalate as necessary at other appropriate places. Dl2000 (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"Systemic bias"? "NPOV"?! We're talking dates, not Gdanzig! The habit of over-linking everything for the sake of a few thousand registered users that actually care about tinkering with their settings is an infinitely more pressing issue than whether a particular editor writes 4 December or December 4. No one of consequence outside of the community gives a damn what we use as long as we're not ambiguious and consistent within the same article.
Peter 10:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

All dates should be auto-formatted by the software

The absolute best way to do this would be to have the software do the formatting for us, with no wiki tags or busywork.

Autoformat anything that's unambiguously a date ("4 December 2008", "2008-12-04", but not things like "1/2/3"), and then use nowiki tags for the few exceptions, the same way RFC 1234 and ISBN 1029384758 are auto-linked, but can be overridden for the rare exceptions (RFC 1234). — Omegatron 01:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, certainly not with the current rubbishy output. No way. Tony (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
What "rubbishy output" are you talking about? --Tkynerd (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Tony's talking about what has been the number one complaint since this debate got started, namely the complusive wikilinking.
Peter 10:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's obvious that Omegatron's comment refers to having the software automatically format dates without requiring wikilinking. No "rubbishy output" involved. --Tkynerd (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Obviously. — Omegatron 16:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's exactly what we've been getting at. The problem is that the developers don't seem to want to go there, believing they've already provided us with a perfect solution. It will take an active (if gradual) rejection of the provided solution before we get a better one, or we'd already have a better one, because this is hardly a new issue. I think that if MOS begins be making the links optional, and insists on using (in real code, not wiki-autoformatted results) consistent formatting within an article and per WP:ENGVAR, we can later slightly deprecate the autoformatting, then completely deprecate it - let consensus change over time - and then finally get the developers to it right the second time. I doubt they will do it before we've gone through at least most of that process. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 02:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is not that the devs are jerks, it's that when this was previously brought to their attention it was done in an unclear and eventually fairly rude way. Given that this is not a matter of core functionality, and that it was not clearly expressed why this bothered people, they were justified in judging this as a minor bug report. They asked if anyone that disliked the status quo was willing to contribute code; no one stepped up. When one of the devs did play with the date formatter and asked for feedback, he didn't get it. Rather than attempting to bludgeon date formatting to death from MOS and creating a big(ger) ungodly mess, it would probably be a good idea to bring this back to the devs with a clearer explanation and perhaps even some prototype code. That would mean hammering out a single course of action first, though. — Aluvus t/c 03:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem was clearly explained to the devs at bugzilla:4582, and they declined to make changes to the software because of the additional mess that would create. Brion, the lead developer, recommended:
My personal recommendation would be to remove all date autoformatting and let a sane manual of style recommend the fairly standard international English form, eg '4 December 2008'. Of course that's too simple and obvious for Misplaced Pages. ;)
The idea (backed by brion) is to put all dates into either "25 December 2007" format for "December 25, 2007" format, with a consistent format used throughout an article. Once that is done, date wikilinking will no longer be necessary because the dates will be consistent and unambigous. I already wrote a script that will do most of the transition, but we need consensus to use it. —Remember the dot 03:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Brion Vibber's suggestion was to use one date format (specifically, the "British" format) for the entire project. You may observe on this page what a large fight there is over which is the One True Format. And no, the discussion on the Bugzilla page is anything but clear; it is pulled in several directions at once, with different people putting forward contradictory suggestions. I read that already familiar with what people disliked about the current system, and still found it confusing. It is obvious from reading that page that some of the devs agreed, right from the start, that the current system was problematic; but there was no clear mandate from users to "please do X". That doesn't leave them with a clear way forward. — Aluvus t/c 04:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Right. There are too many conflicting opinions on what is the best way to technically implement user date preferences. By far the simplest way to do it is at least similar to Brion's suggestion: use either the British "25 December 2007" or the American "December 25, 2007", depending on what the subject of the article would use. There is no One True Format, but there are two equally clear and unambiguous formats. If we switch to using those formats almost exclusively, then it would remove the need for date wikilinking. —Remember the dot 04:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Using a single format is the easiest technical solution (other than doing nothing, which of course is the path of least resistance), but no one has yet explained how it would be the easiest social solution. That there was (and is) so much conflict about how to go about this speaks to the lack of meaningful discussion and consensus-building on this whole morass, not to the actual difficulty or complexity of the problem itself. If the original Bugzilla report had said "please make dates not show up as links", we would not be having this discussion now because people's primary complaint would have been resolved some time ago. But to screw up in reviving this on Bugzilla and then decide to throw out the whole system because fixing it is "too hard" is irrational. — Aluvus t/c 07:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree, this does not provide an easy social solution. I personally have no trouble with a British admiral's bio using 25 December 2007, or an American admiral's bio using December 25, 2007, even if autoformatting were not available, but what about Spanish admirals? Picture two Spanish admirals living in the same era, with one bio written by an American and one by a Briton, each using their natural date format. This would look bizarre to a reader comparing the two, unless autoformatting was used. This is another reason for slowing down the drive to kill autoformatting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris the speller (talk • contribs) 18:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
We already do just that when deciding whether to use British or American spelling, and it doesn't bother anyone. —Remember the dot 18:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I take this "to screw up in reviving this on Bugzilla" as extremely offensive. Have you bothered to read the representation that was made? It was kept as simple as possible, and in essence said EXACTLY what you claime it didn't. It asked for the date autoformatting and the linking systems to be decoupled. Go read it. How dare you frame all of my hard work, and that of others, and the will of the signatories, as a "screw up". Go screw yourself up.
Now, the fact that such a simple, plain message has been ignored by the developers strongly indicates, as SMcCandlish has said, that we're not going to get a technical solution from them.
Vibber's and others' suggestions that a single format be used throughout is not on. It would be like enforcing US or British English throughout. I'd leave. That is why allowing one format to evolve, consistently, in each article, just as for the variety of English, is, IMV, the only way to go. Tony (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I read the entire discussion several times, which is why I am now telling you why it went as it did. "Decouple the systems" and "don't render dates as links" are very, very different requests. As are "don't render as links when the link has a colon in it", "autoformat all unambiguous dates", "autoformat all dates outside the <blockquote> tag", not to mention "autoformat dates and also manipulate them based on the user's IP". None of these are inherently bad solutions (though the IP thing, while neat, is probably very impractical), but they are very contradictory. Repeatedly, I have seen blame placed on the developers for not caring, or not acting quickly enough, or what have you. But the truth is that they were handed a very ambiguous feature request, couldn't hash out what people really wanted (because the people asking didn't know what they wanted), and ultimately the whole process stalled. This has been presented to us here as proof that virtually any technical solution is infeasible, which is not the case.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that your own emotional attachment to this issue is not helpful. The changes you are seeking to implement would impact the entire project (as well as all projects that use its content) in a substantial way, assuming people outside MOSNUM adhere to them. Such decisions should not be made on the basis that you are pissed at the developers. In your haste to kill a system that you personally don't like, you are pushing us toward a solution that has not been adequately explained or examined, and may be just as bad in the long term. — Aluvus t/c 22:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

use either the British "25 December 2007" or the American "December 25, 2007", depending on what the subject of the article would use.

Or use just one of those, and have the software autoformat the display of any instances it sees, as per user preferences, instead of my suggestion of having the software recognize any date format, which the devs seem to think is impossible. — Omegatron 16:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A way forward

I have a suggestion that may help. Let's agree on a date format that is easy for everyone to understand, regardless of nationality, and start using that format exclusively without the confusing wikilinking. I suggest:

"December 25, 2007" or "25 December 2007" (either is fine) for dates that appear in prose, and

"25 Dec 2007" for dates that appear in footnotes.

Let's not muck around with "12-25-2007" versus "25-12-2007" versus "2007-12-25", or ask that editors add brackets for the extremely small number of users who are staunchly opposed to human-readable dates. Let's keep it fully human-readable and as simple as possible. I know that it will take time to transition articles to consistently use human-readable, non-wikilinked dates, but there's no rush, and in the end it will be worth it. —Remember the dot 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to follow one standard, what would be more logical than follow the existing world standard ISO 8601, in the form of 2007-12-25. This is not ambiguous or confusing in any way and quite easily human readable. Furthermore it neither favo(u)rs the US or UK preference. −Woodstone (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Trust me, using the ISO standard can be potentially confusing. Not all countries conform to this standard and I've even heard that this issue has lead to all-out lawsuits between business partners in countries that use different standards when contracts have accidently been breeched. And why on earth would we have have to decide on one standard anyway? Both are completely unambiguous and even less linguistically "political" than "flavour" vs "flavor". Claiming that it actually matters to readers if we place the date before or after the month is pretty much setting up the battle over an issue that has absolutely no encyclopedic consequence.
Peter 20:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The logical thing to do is to pick the date format that is the easiest for the average reader to understand. "2007-12-25" is not as intuitive as "25 December 2007". That's not to say that "2007-12-25" is a not good date format for some applications (such as computing), but it's not the most human-friendly format. —Remember the dot 22:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I like that idea. I think we could initially change the guidelines to either allow an unlinked but clearly unambiguous format, such as the ones you proposed with the month spelled out, or wikilinked dates as they appear today. An article should of course use a consistent format throughout, but it would allow a non-linked format for those who find the links distracting. henrik•talk 22:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone actually use YYYY-DD-MM? And what would that date system be called? I can imagine DD-MM-YYYY being confused with MM-DD-YYYY but I personally don't know anyone who uses YYYY-DD-MM, which could possibly be confused with YYYY-MM-DD. –panda (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The idea I suggested is to completely sidestep the issue by spelling out the name of the month, thus making it very clear which part of the date is the day, which part is the month, and which part is the year. I think that this is the simplest solution and the one that is most likely to take hold. Changes to the software would make it hard to see which dates will be autoformatted and which will not, and thus will greatly compound the problem of people not bothering to wikilink the dates. But if we adopt a simple, common date formatting policy, we wouldn't have to wikilink the dates or use any other kind of special wikiformatting. —Remember the dot 22:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I was just asking a general question, that's a little off-topic, because Peter brought up in Talk:Swedish language#Date autoformatting is sick and not being fixed that we should use unambiguous dates and he implied that ISO dates were ambiguous. So I was just trying to figure out what can be confused with the ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD). I've probably posted this in the wrong place but I don't know where it should go. –panda (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The ISO "2007-12-25" style is unfamiliar to most readers, which may lead to confusion. I would like a system that is as clear as possible. "25 Dec 2007" would be a good choice for an abbreviated date format, and "December 25, 2007" is a good choice for dates in prose. Both of these are very clear and easy to understand, as opposed to the unfamiliar and potentially confusing "2007-12-25".
In other words, it's not a question of ambiguity per se, but rather a question of being in a familiar format that is easy for the reader to understand. —Remember the dot 22:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The reality is that any article that has a British, Australian, etc. subject matter generally uses the british date format, "25 December 2007" in the source text. See John Major for example. You aren't going to be able to convince people to change this; like spelling variants, this is something that's deeply ingrained in national culture. It's really not worth fighting. Also, bear in mind that something like ] results in Wikilinks being made to the appropriate year and day articles... if the reader is confused, they can click on it. -/- Warren 23:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Warren. Also oppose "25 Dec 2007", both because it is missing the dot in the abbreviation and more importantly because we shouldn't abbreviate just for the heck of it. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The goal is to be clear enough that no user has to follow date wikilinks to figure out what the date is. About the "25 Dec 2007" format: that was just a suggestion, and if we'd like to avoid using it then that's fine. I'll respond to the American vs. British date formatting issue below. —Remember the dot 01:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's like enforcing US or UK spelling throughout, rather than consistently within an article. Why not do the same for date formatting? an article uses either one or the other consistently, except in direct quotations. So the same rules apply (see MOS on variants of English, except that connections with a country might be a little looser; but I should imagine that a clearly US-related article would use the most common date formatting in that country, for example). What could be simpler, more consistent with existing practices, and less likely to spark internecine disputes? Tony (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good point. This suggestion fits perfectly into existing guidelines for both dates and spelling: use "December 25, 2007" for articles that use American spelling and "25 December 2007" for articles that use British spelling. The only difference is that other date formats, such as "12-25-2007" or "25-12-2007" should be avoided, and as long as we avoid those harder-to-understand formats no date wikilinking should be necessary. —Remember the dot 01:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This ignores the fact that many American readers don't want to see 25 December 2007, and many British readers don't want to see December 25, 2007. Americans don't just read American articless, and the British don't just read British articles. Even if they did, there are articles pertaining to other countries where the format is whatever the first editor chose, so plenty of readers will be unhappy. The autoformatting was developed to solve these problems, and it works in the vast majority of cases, or did until the recent missionary activity by Tony, Lightmouse, and a few pals. Chris the speller (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This really needs to get fixed on the developer side. I think we'll see a big revolt if MOS tries to suddenly deprecate the wikilinking/formatting of full dates. We need a replacement methodology in place. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 03:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
How many Americans do you think have such of a problem understanding "25 December 2007" that they would use preferences to force it into "December 25, 2007"? How many British would have a problem with "December 25, 2007"? English speakers have no problem understanding spelling variations, and no problem understanding this kind of date variation either. For this reason, few of those who are regularly logged in to Misplaced Pages actually use the date preferences.
And after date preferences are turned on, it creates a disconnect between what date-preference editors see and what other users see. For example, say an American editor is set to use American date preferences and they type "December 25, 2007" into an article that uses British spelling. The American might not care that the date is typed in different format because to them, all the dates are forced into American format. But anonymous users and users without the date preference set would see inconsistent date formatting. This is only one of the many reasons why date formatting does more harm than good. —Remember the dot 03:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Pay attention! I did not say that Americans are dullards unable to understand 25 December 2007, I said that they don't want to see dates in that format. I think that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, prefer to see dates in the format that they're used to, and a great many use the preference settings to achieve that. Can you prove me wrong? Not for a second do I buy the ridiculously low estimates that Tony and his followers repeatedly claim for utilization of this feature. Even if it were a paltry 100 readers, I don't think that 3 or 4 zealots have any right to take that feature away from 100 readers that are content with it. And your last argument has no teeth; I use the date preference setting for American-style dates, but I manage to fix and clean up mixed-format dates and nonstandard dates in articles of both flavors. Chris the speller (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that you can clean up mixed-format dates even when using date preferences. Still, I think that there may be users who are not so adept. You're right; that's a fairly minor point.
My question is: is the date preference feature, used by a minority of users, enough of a benefit to outweigh the overlinking, the clogged "What links here" pages for articles like 2007, the confusion of new editors, and the extra time spent making sure that dates are wikilinked? The majority of editors are doing a rather large amount of work compared to the benefit that the minority receives. If we stopped using confusing date formats like "12-11-2007" then we could stop wikilinking (saving a lot of time, effort, and confusion) without significantly impacting the reader's experience or ability to understand the encyclopedia. —Remember the dot 04:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (Outdent) Oh really, Chris, why, then, hasn't there been open rebellion by Americans over the autoformatting of the dates we all see by far the most often: in our signatures? They're all in the British/Australian/Irish/NZ/South African format. I'm sure most North Americans haven't even noticed. And to take your argument to its logical conclusion, British readers would take objection to US spelling in WP. We have all happily accepted the varieties-of-English thing, which—aside from a few silly attempts to mass convert articles to different/inappropriate varieties—seems to work just fine, with consistency-boundaries around each article and intelligent rules about country-relatedness and not arbitrarily changing the variety once established. Now give me one good reason that comfortably reading "behavior" if you're British, or "behaviour" if you're Canadian, is in some different category from reading "23 November 1927" or "November 25, 1927" if you're from the other planet. It's just so trivial. Both formats are perfectly—effortlessly—comprehended by all English speakers. Who cares?
  • But what I do care about is:
  1. the ugly blue splotches,
  2. the inflexibility,
  3. the cluttering of wiki-edit pages with square brackets,
  4. the unthinking spill-over into the linking of non-autoformatted chronological items (the 1990s),
  5. the fact that almost ALL readers of WP have to endure significant inconsistencies in formatting within articles, because they're covered up by the autoformatting, and we don't bother to fix them in the blind belief that they're ironed by autoformatting. They're not. What must appear very sloppy editing practices are exposed for all to see, and WPians are oblivious to it. At least that aspect would be cleaned up if an article is de-autoformatted. In relation to this, User talk:SandyGeorgia has just written on her talk page: "... with all the cleanup I've done at FAC and FAR, I can tell that with the exception of the few articles that are written largely by a single editor using a single style, most articles are a mish-mash mess of different formats added by different editors....".
  • Now, let's take an example. Which would you rather read below? US spelling is used, so ... we'll just use US formatting for the full dates. Non-North-Americans, please get out your magnifying glasses and your calculators: take great care translating month and day: it's hard, so WP provides tables and equations to assist you in working it out.

Poe traveled to West Point and matriculated as a cadet on July 1, 1830. In October 1830, John Allan married his second wife, Louisa Patterson. Poe soon decided to leave West Point by purposely getting court-martialed. On February 8, 1831, he was tried for gross neglect of duty and disobedience of orders.

  • or this:

Poe traveled to West Point and matriculated as a cadet on July 1, 1830. In October 1830, John Allan married his second wife, Louisa Patterson. Poe soon decided to leave West Point by purposely getting court-martialed. On February 8, 1831, he was tried for gross neglect of duty and disobedience of order.

  • Allowing people not to autoformat dates (since, let's face it, there's zilch chance it will be fixed for some time) is entirely reasonable and wouldn't impose obligations on developers to redo the citation templates: leave them as they are in the reference lists at the bottom of articles, at least for the moment. And I'm not suggesting a mass conversion; just a dropping of the insistence on autoformatting. Tony (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Remember the dot/Tony. Dates should be treated like words that are spelled differently in American/British English. Use British English in British articles (colour/25 December 2007) and American English in American articles (color/December 25, 2007) . It works for prose and it will work for dates. Dates like 2007-12-25 should not be used because they can be confusing and not instantly comprehensible (e.g 1886-2-4, 1990-12-11, 1982-05-04 versus 4 February 1886, December 11, 1990) as months and days are not always clearly distinguishable. This way, we don't need auto formatting. One thing is clear, dates should not be linked. Kameejl 14:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I cannot comprehend how anyone could see a risk of interpreting 1886-2-4 to be anything else than the second month. That format (even though it only partially conforms to the standard) is never used to mean the fourth month anywhere. The ISO standard also specifies that the incomplete date "October 1830" from the example above should be written 1830-10, so that the quote would read consistently as:

Poe traveled to West Point and matriculated as a cadet on 1830-07-01. In 1830-10, John Allan married his second wife, Louisa Patterson. Poe soon decided to leave West Point by purposely getting court-martialed. On 1831-02-08, he was tried for gross neglect of duty and disobedience of order.

−Woodstone (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the ISO standard, other than the unattractiveness, is that readers may not recognize a month-year combination as such. "December 1910" is perfectly plain to everyone. If we were to use "1910-12" instead, how many readers would interpret this as the years 1910 through 1912? Yes, you should know it's not a date range by my use of a hyphen instead of an en dash, but that's far from common knowledge and I don't expect it from the average reader. Pagrashtak 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Its probably a bigger issue that should be discussed just here, but not linking dates, and having a common style within articles does seem like a reasonable way to go until a 'better' way of achieving auto formatting can be programmed into the media-wiki software. --Neo (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Woodstone, it's not as straight forward as you might think. Some countries use MM-DD-YYYY (USA) and some others use DD-MM-YYYY (Western Europe). What would you think of 10-03-1990, or 1990-10-03 if you'd have no knowledge of ISO 8601? What would you think of March 10, 1990, or 3 October 1990 if you'd have no knowledge of ISO 8601? Kameejl 22:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That I'm well aware of. But no-one uses YYYY-DD-MM. That's why 2001-02-03 is never confusing, even if you don't know ISO 8601. −Woodstone (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If you don't know ISO 8601 then you don't know that nobody uses YYYY-DD-MM. If you don't know ISO 8601, you look at a date in that format and think "I have never seen a date in this format in my life, and I do not know what it means." TomTheHand (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, readers can figure out what 2001-02-03 means, but "3 February 2001" or "February 3, 2001" is more natural to them. We're trying to make this as easy as possible for the readers. —Remember the dot 02:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's important not to underestimate the brouhaha that may result in the community over a simple change to date formatting (once a decision is reached here), and there's the additional issue of the inconsistent mess across the cite templates and how they handle dates. We should bring aboard some bot programmers, or at least ask someone like Gimmetrow for an opinion. I'm not fond of the idea ... "25 Dec 2007" would be a good choice for an abbreviated date format, and "December 25, 2007" for prose ... it introduces two contradictory formats in one article, and may just bug and confuse people. I hate the ISO format (just my 2 cents); it's ugly in prose and I always have to stop and think whether Venezuelan articles might get it wrong, and if you leave off the zero it doesn't format, and so on. I do think some editors on either side of the pond will object to being forced to write dates "the other way", so I like Tony's idea of using dates just as we use varieties of English; each article is either British or America throughout. Remove the linking, expect that each article uses one format consistently, either December 25, 2007 or 25 December 2007, in prose and footnotes alike. I think we could get acceptance for this, but it would need to be carefully presented, as everyone has an opinion. Most of our articles are a mish-mash, so editors not logged in to Wiki are seeing a jumbled mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, let's just talk about what will be the best solution here, and then ask for broader community input. After the above discussion, I totally agree that each article should use the same formatting in prose as it does in footnotes. For example, if it uses "December 25, 2007" in the prose, then the footnotes should follow the same convention, no abbreviation.
I am currently developing a JavaScript tool to assist in the transition. My vision is to have two simple buttons: "Reformat dates in American style" and "Reformat dates in British style". The editor would then click the button, the wikilinked dates would be reformatted, and the wikilinking would be removed. —Remember the dot 05:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I just want to be clear what exactly the proposal is for. Is it only about choosing either AmE or BrE style dates or is it about choosing either AmE or BrE for an entire article? For example, there is an article where the text is written in AmE but the dates are in BrE. –panda (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
My proposal, which seems to have at least some support here, is to use a date formatting that is consistent with the variety of English used in the article, dispensing with the autoformatting schmuck and in the process ensuring that 99% of WP's readers, who have no set format in their preferences, are not faced with sloppy inconsistencies that are largely concealed from WPs by their rather exclusive autoformatting system. It's very simple and consistent with other principles of WP. Tony (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
While I think the proposal is a good idea, there is no "international" or ISO English so the proposal would preclude using the ISO date format in all articles. I personally like ISO dates since they're unambiguous (which is not the same as unfamiliar) and short, using the least amount of space when compared with AmE or BrE dates, which is a plus in places like the references. They're also used quite widely in WP, primarily in references. Also, as another editor pointed out, if anyone is not sure what the date means (as long as they are linked), they can always click on the link and find out. If you can fit ISO style dates in there somewhere, then the proposal would be even better. –panda (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the ISO format too in many cases, but I think that the best solution here is to just spell everything out. The ISO format can still be used in some cases per the existing guidelines, but in prose and footnotes everything should just be spelled out for maximum clarity. The added space we take up doing spelling things out is a downside, but the added clarity and consistency makes up for it. —Remember the dot 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is decided to go forward, I strongly suggest that we set up templates to do this, instead of spelling it out. {{dam|2007|12|11}} to give American format w/o wikilinks, {{dbr|2007|12|11}} for british no wikilink, {{dsh|2007|12|11}} for short no wikilinks, and each with an additional |l parameter to include wikilinks for day and year. The reasoning four-fold:

  1. A bot should be able to easily move any existing correct date to one of these formats (two sweeps, first for all dates, second to move to the dsh for any dates within templates).
  2. We gain more control when we wikilink. Yes, dates that should be wikilinked for sure can be written to take advantage of standard user-prefs, but then you're going to have possibly two different forms on the page.
  3. Say someone converts dates in an article in good faith in article to American form, but its realized the article should really be in British form. Search and replace of "dam" for "dbr" is very easy to do, and vice versa
  4. If we ever resolve the bugzilla issue such that auto-wikilinking of user-pref formatted dates can be disabled, we can repurpose the templates to handle those cases without requiring a large project-wide bot changeover. (One is still needed at the start, but this also prevents one at the backend should the problem be resolved.

Just an idea... (and while I'd like the template names to be shorted, "db" is already in use). --MASEM 17:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but it's still overly complex. It makes wikitext even harder to understand, and many users are just going to not bother with the template. It also eliminates only one disadvantage of wikilinking: inconsistent formatting, and the JavaScript tool I'm working on will be able to fix that too (using regular expressions), and more easily.
A bot to force dates into a particular format is not a good idea because there are always things that shouldn't be reformatted, such as dates in quotes. —Remember the dot 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Or have the software autoformat ISO dates as per user preferences wherever it finds them, and use them anywhere autoformatting is desired, as a more limited implementation of my autoformatting request. — Omegatron 16:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I've just waded through this lot. I can see only one sensible solution, which is to follow Tony's suggestion: follow the lead of the first main contributor. That principle seems to work well with spelling, so why not with dates? Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I too have to concur with Tony, but I warn that we'd better do this more formally, with an RfC and advertising the proposed change more broadly, or people are going to completely flip out. Also want to echo who ever's comment it was that the numeric style is a no-go, because it is not readily understood by everyone, and the ambiguity of something like 2007-08 vs. 2007–08 simply isn't acceptable. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 01:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Problem, sorry, I just noticed this comment from Tony: My proposal, which seems to have at least some support here, is to use a date formatting that is consistent with the variety of English used in the article, ... Venezuela uses American English and British dates; date formatting and variety of English will not always be the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. We can clarify the guideline to say to use British dates for articles related to countries that use British dates, and American dates for articles related to countries that use American dates.
So does it work to simply remove "English-speaking" from the current wording ("Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should generally use the more common date format for that nation.")? Tony (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, my script to automatically reformat dates now supports wikilinked ISO-format dates, so we now have an easy way to make a (gradual) switchover. We should agree on how to rephrase the guideline, and then get an RfC started to get broader community input. —Remember the dot 01:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Transitional script now available

I've put together a script that can assist in the transition to unlinked but consistently formatted dates. Try adding the following to your monobook.js: 

importScript('User:Remember the dot/Date format unifier.js')

When editing a page, this script adds two new items to the toolbox, "Format dates American style" and "Format dates British style". It will then scan the page for wikilinked dates of either style, and reformat them in the target style without the confusing wikilinking. It does not yet handle ISO-format dates.

If needed, the tool could be modified fairly easily to reformat unlinked dates. However, I do not want the tool doing this by default due to dates in quotes etc.

What do you think? —Remember the dot 22:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't do this while editing the page; do it after the page has been rendered, for display only. Identify dates in plain text and reformat them. Use an unambiguous format for all dates if it's too difficult to make it recognize general cases. — Omegatron 16:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the script has only been tested on Firefox 2, though it should also work on Internet Explorer 7 and Opera. —Remember the dot 22:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your script didn't seem to work for me. Tested on Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets and it didn't change any format, only delinked one repeated date. Ultimately this problem should be addressed the same as how PMID 123456780 and ISBN 0-905715-24-1 work. (I thought ISO did the same thing, but apparently not?) Gimmetrow 00:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah. It doesn't handle ] ]. It's expecting dates in the format ], ] (note the comma separator). I can fix this if you'd like. —Remember the dot 01:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
You probably should, because date prefs insert the comma and many editors type dates without them. (Yes, it's not ideal for non-logged-in editors...) Gimmetrow 02:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 Fixed. Please let me know if you find any other problems with the script. I should have an ISO-only (wikilinked or not) script available shortly. —Remember the dot 05:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Date autoformatting hides inconsistency in the raw dates for logged-in editors. Changing the entire autoformatting system isn't going to happen overnight, but it should be within reason to have the raw dates in an article formatted consistently. That's what I thought your script would do, but apparently it also delinks. Since you've already done this work, could you have this (or another) script keep the date links but format to US or UK style? Gimmetrow 15:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly stupid question (template mechanics)

I know just enough about how templates work on WP to be dangerous in the sense that I'm trying to think that if we can figure this out to make a template {{d|2007-12-14}} and {{dl|2007-12-14}} to produce unlinked but user-pref formatted dates and linked, user-pref formatted dates, respectively (those don't have to be the template names of course). Given that I'm sure someone's looked at this before via templates, I figure I may be reasking an earlier question but it can't hurt. Looking at the Mediawiki help, the extensions seem to be there: we can assign a value to a variable, we can use string manipulation to strip out parts of that text, and we can format a date per user-specifications. It would seem to be that it should be possible to create the standard wiki-linked date from #date and then process it to remove the wikilinks if these aren't desired.

Again, I know the issue has been brought up before at WP:Date Debate though I haven't seen anything that outlines technically why it cannot be done by templates, so I'm sure more experienced eyes have tried to work this possibility out. Is it because some of those MediaWiki extensions are not enabled in WP or something I'm missing in the template mechanics? --

I think it's possible (I can see a way to do it), but I don't think it's worth the hassle. Once we eliminate the confusing date formats there shouldn't be much of a need to reformat dates at all. As soon as we start talking about a more complicated solution then it's headaches all over again. —Remember the dot 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I played with this yesterday, and yes, there's no way to do it using templates as WP is currently configured (per Special:Version). The various MediaWiki extensions that allow for string manipulation are not installed, and there's no equivalent aspect from any of the other included extensions. #time gets us to the point of ] ] (in user-pref date format) but I can't remove the square brackets without additional functions. --MASEM 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The #time m:ParserFunction doesn't produce wikilinked code: 11 January 2025 vs. January 11, 2025. Gimmetrow 01:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately (for what I was trying to do) #time doesn't adjust for user date prefs; however if you give the format code, say ] ] then it gives wikilinked code, when then the auto date formmatting steps in and adjusts it. --MASEM 01:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Is the thought to make a template which formats dates according to prefs? If it were possible to have a user-defined string available as a Magic Word, you could do something like {{#time: {{USERDATEPREF|d F Y}}|September 11, 2001}}. But this seems like a roundabout way to deal with this problem. And, #time only works for 1970 to 2038. Gimmetrow 01:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yet another piece of javascript code could probably remove the links for those who want less blue text. Gimmetrow 01:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Added text

Before someone bites my head off for adding text to this guideline, I'd like to explain myself. I added text to state that date formatting should be consistent throughout an article's prose, and should generally follow the nationality of the subject. This is what we do already, the only difference is that now it's explicitly stated in the guideline. I did not remove the autolinking requirement or say that ISO dates are forbidden. —Remember the dot 22:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

BC/AD vs. BCE/CE dating style

Propose changing the manual of style to add the following:

On articles on specifically Christian subjects not shared with other religions (e.g. Jesus, Chrism, Old Testament), the BC/AD dating system may be used. On articles on specifically on non-Christian religions or subjects shared with multiple religions (e.g. Ten Commandments, Hebrew Bible, Pharisees), the BCE/CE dating system is preferred.

Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been proposed before. The problem is that BC/AD is used secularly, very widely so. It was even (and occasionally still is!) used in scientific contexts until the rather recent invention of the BCE/CE nomenclature. I vastly prefer BCE/CE, for the same reasons it was invented (i.e. to reduce the pushing of a religious point of view), but I don't always get my way here. <sigh> — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 01:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that our fists have healed completely from the last time someone proposed changing this. It is well written at the moment and we should leave well enough alone. —MJCdetroit (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Strongly concur, on a WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND basis, even if I would like to see it settled out some day. I firmly predict, and would even lay real money on it, that 5 years from now WP will pretty consistently use the BCE/CE system, but we're just not there yet. I take a Bene Gesserit kind of long view on things like this. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 09:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree too. It's not worth the fight. Tony (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no wish to spark debate over the merits of either notation, but I must say that I get the feeling that this is a rather uniquely American controversy. To someone who has been raised in a thoroughly secular environment, the suggestion that the modern use of BC/AD instead of BCE/CE would somehow constitute a religious statement (let alone a POV) is highly exaggerated.
Peter 13:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The proposal does not apply to "thoroughly secular" contexts. It applies specifically to religious contexts where connotations and sensibilities are different and which can use specialized language to reflect this. As an analogy, in an ordinary article there might be no need to be concerned that a statement about charm or flavor would be interpreted as a statement about physics. No doubt a person from a nonscientific environment would similarly think the idea of confusion exaggerated if not silly, and in most article contexts such concern would be inappropriate. But in physics articles this is indeed possible, and a non-physicist can't really tell when physicists would infer a physical meaning and when they wouldn't. Many words have both ordinary and specialized meanings. Caution is appropriate to take into account otherwise ordinary words' specialized meanings in a field for purposes of articles on subjects in that field. Religion is no different from physics in this regard. The proposal is limited to specifically religious subjects. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: The proposal is limited to articles specifically on the subject of religion. Articles on secular subjects remain unaffected. In the specific context of articles on Judaism or Islam, BC/AD dating is often perceived as a religious statement. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of terminology like 2nd Century AD is incorrect. AD means something like "Year of the Lord", so how can you have 2nd Century in the Year of the Lord?. Periods like 2nd Century need neither AD nor CE, they stand on their own without clarification. 86.31.35.135 (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Modified proposal

Given the feedback so far, how about we qualify the exception to make clear it is limited to specifically religious subjects:

Exception limited to articles specifically on religious subjects: On articles on specifically Christian subjects not shared with other religions (e.g. Jesus, Chrism, Old Testament), the BC/AD dating system may be used. On articles on specifically on non-Christian religious subjects or subjects shared with multiple religions (e.g. Mohammed, Ten Commandments, Maimonides, Pharisees), the BCE/CE dating system is preferred.

Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Sorry, I know you mean well, but I still oppose. If you want to change format from BC/AD to BCE/CE bring it up on the individual talk page, gain consensus and do so. I would think that you would not have any problem doing so on an article about something Jewish or Islamic in nature. —MJCdetroit (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral Weak support, prefer broader solution: I like this in theory, as far as it goes, but fear that in practice it will just big a big battle. I'd rather see us settle on BCE/CE across the board, including for Christian topics, because the consistency would be more important than the POV of keeping Christians who like BC/AD happy. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 00:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I'm actually with SMcCandlish on this. I think Misplaced Pages should take a stand. It's enough that Christian partisans have calibrated the world's universal dating system at 0 = their God's alleged year of birth. Why can't they be happy with that? Why also rub it in, with a reference to their Christ in dates? Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated, so here goes: The world is large and various, guys. Live with it, and allow the language to be secular and tolerant of difference, by adopting a uniform non-religious system for dates. But in practice we'll never succeed with this one; hence my weak support for the alternative proposal – which also will not succeed.– Noetica Talk 03:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment if you look at the Jesus page it says that he was born between 7 and 2 BC where 0 BC is when he was born.... Given this shouldn't all articles especially religious ones use BCE/CE? Otherwise we should have two sets of dates of set by 7-2 years. Shniken1 (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't fully parse your first sentence, but anyway most Christians who are even aware of the fact that most Biblical scholars argue for a BC date for Jesus's birth, simply do not believe it. It's a faith matter. AD one starts right after the birth of Jesus, and that's just that. The fact that they're probably factually wrong isn't going to stop them from insisting on BC/AD dates for Christian and other topics. That's one reason I say MoS should just insist on BCE/CE dates and have done with it, because the types who will demand BC/AD dates on a religion basis will insist upon it more generally as "right". — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 02:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - if this is just an issue for religious based articles then surely it can be left to relevant religious wiki-projects to develop their own guidelines on the subject. --Neo (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Both WP:WikiProject Judaism and WP:WikiProject Islam had done this. It had been argued that religion wikiprojects don't have the authority to establish dating conditions different from the manual of style with its first-to-edit rule. One very simple compromise would be to make clear that Wikiprojects can have a different rule. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It should not be phrased in terms of WikiProjects; too many WPPs already have inflated ideas of their importance and supremacy over "mere" editors, and this really has to stop. It should be phrased in terms of editorial consensus at the article to which it would apply. In most cases, where a WikiProject is genuinely active and isn't acting like an exclusive private club, what the WikiProject wants and what the editors of in-scope articles want, regardles off their project participation, will align. Where they do not align, the MoS sure as heck should not be giving the project some kind of authoritative edit that it simply doesn't have under policy. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 02:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support – You don’t need the first sentence, perhaps: “In articles on religious subjects not exclusive to Christianism the common era dating system is preferred.”
I further propose to rename – for all Wikipedian purposes – the weekdays except for Monday and Sunday, and (at least) the months January, March, May and June, because all of them are not religiously neutral. Christoph Päper (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that Misplaced Pages take its own advocacy position against common usage based on abstract principle and would not recommend doing so. I am only suggesting addressing actual existing perceptions and issues. There may possibly be articles where references to the Sun's day or the Moon's day (or for that matter Tyr's Woden's, Thor's, Fria's or Saturn's days) might be taken religiously as well. But we don't have to deal with it unless it comes up. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I’ve got an issue with being called German (or Allemand, Niemcy etc.) instead of deutsch, no speaker of English cares about my feelings.
Yes, you have to deal with the implications of your proposal. What better time than now? Christoph Päper (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This is getting a bit silly. Hardly anyone knows the actual origin of our weekday names, the religions they derived from died centuries ago (yeah, yeah, I know about Neopaganism), and they don't have anything to do with a world in which radical Christianity is trying to prevent the teaching of science in schools, and radical Muslims are blowing up people all over the place on the basis of them being Christians. More to the point, no such system of replacement weekday names is accepted, which is not the case for the BCE/CE replacement for the BC/AD system. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 02:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Huh? How would propose to talk about BC/BCE dates then? — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 02:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying it's not worth the drama. Arbcom's ruling is fine. Feezo (Talk) 02:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the official policy on this(if one exists) & where can I find it? <Fennessy/talk> 19:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Jesus article is not specifically Christian, nor even specifically religious. Using only BC & AD on the Jesus article would mean wikipedia takes the position that it is OK in the Jesus article to say Jesus really has a uniquely legitimate claim to being called both Lord & Saviour/Messiah/Christ. Someday, not too many years from now, CE/BCE will be the standard (unless some other standard/abbreviation that currently has practically zer0 support comes along to replace CE/BCE) --JimWae (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • One thing that would help would be if there were some HTML markup that could become part of user preferences. This would not settle the issue for those without preferences set, but it might provide an opportunity for light rather than heat on the topic. Perhaps Jimbo will someday decide which would be the default for wikipedia for those without preferences set, or he could just let editors incessantly hash it out. One thing the HTML markup would need to recognize is the use of both on some pages --JimWae (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Jim but you're talking utter rubbish in your first point above. On your second point - good idea, but this was suggested ages ago and for some reason it was decided not to implement the suggestion. 86.31.35.135 (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed MOSNUM text for optional autoformatting

Dear colleagues, pursuant to the discussions above, I propose the following replacement of the opening text (i.e., the five bullet points and table) in MOSNUM's Dates section; this incorporates and thus would replace MOSNUM's Autoformatting and linking section. For the subsection on the non-autoformatted display of dates, I've drawn heavilyl on MOS's Varieties of English section. In this respect, the proposal is merely the logical extension of that long-standing policy to dates.

Here's the proposal, for which I seek your feedback.

Tony (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

On
  • Therefore, if autoformatting is used, the raw formatting within the autoformatting syntax must be consistent throughout the main text of each article.
do we want to say that the raw formatting should be consistent in either case (autoformatting used or not used)? Also, can you emphasize somewhere that this include prose (text) as well as footnotes/references? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, the need for within-article consistency is stated in both "Autoformatting" and "Without autoformatting" subsections. I will add a point about footnotes and references now. I presume that it won't suddenly require work by developers, yes? Tony (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This proposal really don't solve anything...editors are still going to debate whether or not articles should use wikilinking. We really need to just come out and say that editors should be using unambiguous, unlinked dates. As I mentioned above, I already developed a JavaScript tool to assist in the transition, so editors can quickly and easily get dates into the new format. —Remember the dot 00:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Remember the dot: I agree with your goal, but politics is the art of the possible, and I think that banning autoformatting is going to upset a lot of people, who'll end up derailing any change. The proposal allows your bot to work (although it would be diplomatic first to ask contributors if you think they may be sensitive about it). Banning autoformatting immediately makes just about every article in breach of MOS and will require time and application to return to compliance. It's too dramatic.
On the contrary, I'd be willing to insert a "provided there is consensus on the talk page" clause if people are going to object to the current optional proposal. But I'd rather do that only if it's a deal-breaker. That's how we achieved change WRT the use of unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Tony (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
On
  • The use of WikiMedia's date autoformatting system for full dates, and days and months, is optional.
I want to put my strong opposition to this entire proposal on record. Looking through the debate above, I think I'm correct in saying that none of the proponents of change have been editing (at least under their current account names) much before mid-2005. I was here in mid-2003 and remember the disputes which resulted in the creation of the present date preferences system and can see no reason why they would not restart if routine linking of dates became deprecated. Sure, the present system isn't perfect, but until the developers can be persuaded to produce something better it is not so badly broken that it needs to be thrown out completely. Leave the present MOSNUM text alone. -- Arwel (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
(1) I think you're underestimating the number of problems in the current autoformatting system, the complexity of addressing them, the fact that most of WikiMedia's developers are voluntary and are apparently not thrilled about the prospect of trying to address these problems, and the need to shepherd any new system through an approval process further up the chain once it has been developed.
(2) As for the disputes nearly five years ago, well, I guess they occurred in the absence of well-drafted rules such as we have now to manage the Varieties of English issue. This proposal embodies an analogous set of rules that are a logical extension of this to date formatting. Your fears, I think, are unfounded. Tony (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you are substantially overestimating the problems with the current autoformatting system, and sensationalizing some of the most minor. I also want to emphasize that a moderate solution (making dates no longer behave as links and perhaps some other fixes) is probably quite technically feasible. In fact, it probably would have already been implemented if the original Bugzilla entry (or any of its various resurrections) had simply asked for this directly. As for the "varieties of English" bit, I would hesitate to call that "well-drafted" and I would point out that I still see edits that change one dialect to another with some frequency. — Aluvus t/c 03:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • OMG, it 'DID' ask for this directly, plainly and simply. You clearly haven't read it. See SMcCandlish's entry below, too. Tony (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • First you say I'm overestimating (I can cope with that accusation), but "sensationalising"? That's rather out of proportion with the reasoned arguments I've put, isn't it?
  • Do you really think the system is going to be fixed any time soon? Please let's not kid ourselves about the developers' attitudes or the technical challenges of fixing all of the issues (although the main one, linking entanglement, may be feasible – but I'm suspicious that no one has been able to do it. See Rob Church's and others' attempts, documented at Bugzilla, and Vibber's implication that it was quite a task).
  • It appears to me that you're seeing the issue very much from a logged in editor's perspective, whereas all that really counts is our readers' experience, and only a tiny proportion access the autoformatting function. And worse, are you claiming that the autoformatting system is not' associated with inconsistencies in formatting within articles that SandyGeorgia has pointed out from her large sample of clean-ups? Are you claiming that the absence of rules and the masking of the raw formatting by the auto function isn't allowing messy inconsistency for all but the self-selected few WPians who don't see the raw formatting in their display? I see none of these issues addressed in your comments. Tony (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You've made two sweeping claims about the "National varieties of English" section in MOS without specifying the reasons: just why are you asserting that it is poorly drafted (details, please), and can you provide (recent) examples of imbroglios that remained unresolved despite the application of the guidelines? Please remember that the text underwent an overhaul only six months ago.
I agree that the disadvantages of the current system are being blown way out of proportion here. I feel that autoformatting is an important feature, and I think its advantages outweigh its disadvantages. TomTheHand (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Tom, you may feel that it's important and that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but others don't share your view. Why do you insist on forcing your view on everyone? What is wrong with enabling you and others to use it not to use it by consensus on an article-by-article basis, given a set of carefully conceived guidelines? Tony (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
How can you say that others don't share Tom's view (with italics, no less)? How many times have I stated the same thing, and how many more times do I have to say so? As many times as you and a few other anti-formatters state (with no evidence) that few readers have specified a preference for date format? Chris the speller (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Tony, you may feel that it's important and that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, but others don't share your view. Why do you insist on forcing your view on everyone? — Aluvus t/c 23:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not forcing any view on anyone: I want editors to be given the option to use autoformatting or to avoid it by following a set of rules for the choice of format and consistency in an article. The current system forces everyone to use autoformatting. That is what you appear to want to retain. Tony (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My impression is certainly that you would quite like to force all dates to be de-linked. We keep hearing about the "rubbishy output" of linked dates and the implication that you support a less severe solution only because of the "politics". But set that aside: unlinked dates force people to read dates in a format they may not like (or worse, understand). This is the entire reason for the autoformating system. Ironically, a mixture of linked and unlinked dates would force people with a preference set to see inconsistent dates. Additionally, the general tone of this discussion (and of previous discussions on this topic) is of a few people that quite dislike date autoformating trying to force everyone else to throw it under the bus. — Aluvus t/c 05:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I am tiring of your accusations that I, or anyone else, would like to "force" people to not to autoformat. You really are brushing against dishonest (or is it consistently careless?) misrepresentation of my views. At the moment, everyone is forced to use the autoformatting. In what way am I forcing all dates to be delinked? Please show me where I've said that. It will soon become acrimonious if you tell lies and distort what I say. And where, pray let us know, do I "keep" talking about the rubbishy output? I wrote that ONCE, and ONCE ONLY. "Keep hearing" means that I say this continually. Now if this is the way you engage in a debate, no one will take you seriously. It really is offensive. Tony (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Aluvus is not the only person who had the impression that you would like to do away with autoformatting. You "advise WPians not to autoformat". If a sufficient number of your converts remove links from full dates, won't it bring more chaos to the articles, perhaps creating a situation so difficult that more editors will agree to any new paradigm? Perhaps changing the guideline to recommend not linking full dates? I feel that is what you are after. Wouldn't that in effect "force" people not to autoformat? It would force me, because I follow the guidelines. Chris the speller (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Listen carefully and read my lips: My statements concerning discouraging people from using autoformatting have been in the light of the long-term stasis on the issue and the apparently slim chance of getting the developers to fix it any time this century. I have never been interested in "forcing" people not to do what they are forced to do now. Once its use is optional, my role in pushing for change will shift to:
  1. supporting further representations for technical improvements to autoformatting (despite my pessimism on that count, but perhaps once the developers see that WP has lost enough confidence in their four-year-old "solution" to end compulsory usage, they might be more inclined to act) and
  2. insisting on within-article consistency where autoformatting is used—this is currently in a bad state largely because of the autoformatting system.
My stance is the very opposite of forcing anyone to do anything; please do not misrepresent it. By analogy, at the top of this talk page you'll see the debate on making unit conversions optional in science-based articles. There, the antagonists held that this would be the first step on a slippery slope. Um ... it hasn't happened after the option was introduced. We've moved on, mission accomplished. Tony (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The idea behind my JavaScript tool is to eliminate confusing and inconsistent dates. Having this whole date formatting system is not truly necessary in order to have perfectly understandable dates. As for the inconsistency that would stem from transition from wikilinked to unlinked dates, we could ask the devs to just disable date preferences. That request is simple enough that they would probably go for it if we demonstrated consensus to do so. —Remember the dot 05:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comment above, added in my previous edit, as regards the way this was brought to Bugzilla. But as for the rest:
  • You have personally made quite a big deal out of the inability to autoformat something like "August 15-16" or "the night of August 15/16", when in fact the former can be solved with "August 15 to August 16" and the latter is an edge case that I have never seen in any article (and can be worked around with "the night of August 15/August 16"). I don't doubt that there are a handful of articles where this may crop up, but I also don't doubt that there are very few of them. Nor that a simple rephrase (or even "the night of August 15") can generally make this a moot point. You keep bringing up edge cases like these even though they are at best very minor limitations.
  • The developers' attitude appears to be "we agree that something should be done, what should it be?" Unfortunately they have not been presented with any consensus on what should be done.
  • More than 80 WPians asked them to develop a simple syntax for a separate, non-linked autoformatting. During the several weeks in which the petition was open, not one person opposed. I even notified a prominent antagonist to the delinking of chronological items; she did not stand in the way. I don't know why this doesn't represent, in your words, "consensus on what should be done". It was quite clear on Bugzilla, and we left it up to the developers to select the actual syntax, on the advice of several techy participants. Tony (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Consensus that "something should be done" is not the same as consensus that "exactly this should be done". Again, read the Bugzilla page and look at the wildly different ideas being presented. All of that confusion should have been resolved before the feature request was revived. — Aluvus t/c 05:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Choosing a site-wide default date format for autoformated dates (and allowing editors to override it with date preferences) would moot any concerns about inconcistency due to autoformating. I am also very confused by your implication that a "self-selected few WPians" use date autoformating, when you have previously claimed the exact opposite.
  • I see edits and edit conflicts over national spellings with enough frequency that I do not bother recording specific instances. These are generally fairly brief (because some third party cites WP:ENGVAR and/or temporarily protects the page), because ENGVAR has its positives. But I hesitate to treat it as a model that should be used as a basis for other policies. It is an "OK" policy that works within the limits of Wikipedian culture, but one must not ignore its drawbacks and simply duplicate its thinking. — Aluvus t/c 23:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Right, and it's become clear that developers aren't going to do anything for us about this, because the consider the matter already solved. What actually happened is that the solution caused more problems than it fixed. The only way to get a better solution appears to be to actively reject the first one. I think this is a perfectly rational thing to do. We gave the solution the benefit of the doubt, tried it for a couple of years, and it has proved unworkable. Consensus can change – the fact that there was a consensus several years ago to try this out does not mean we are stuck with it forever. WP is not a legal system, and is not bound by precedent. I also resent the implication that over two years of near-daily service to Misplaced Pages is somehow not enough to come to sensible conclusions about what is good for Misplaced Pages. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 01:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you thought I was denigrating your contributions, that was certainly not the intention. The point I was attempting to make is that those of us who have been here longer can remember why we got to the present situation. Yes, consensus can change - until fairly recently we routinely wikilinked to stand-alone years, and I am glad that we got rid of that pointlessness, but the displayed format of dates is something which is deeply culturally ingrained in the readers, and as we found in 2003 this is something which rubs people up the wrong way to an incredible degree which is why autoformatting was created. When you say the present system is unworkable, I think that you are simply wrong; OK there are difficulties with expressing date ranges, but on the whole autoformatting's advantages outweigh the disadvantages. You can quite justifiably insist on using the same format within an article, for the benefit of people who don't have preferences set, but to remove routine autoformatting for those who have stated a preference will cause one hell of an argument, particularly if it's seen as the hobbyhorse of a dozen or so individuals affecting hundreds of thousands of articles. -- Arwel (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm still sputtering at Arwel Parry's response. I've never had much use for WP:WBE and editcountitis, but considering that a huge portion of mine are in article cleanup, perhaps that list is useful on this occasion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit count and time in the project are quite different things. It is very easy to say a solution sucks when you never really experienced the problem it is meant to solve. As someone that was not present at that time, I value the thoughts of those that were there. This is one of those instances where seniority is actually relevant. While I would like to hear from other "old timers" (no offense intended), I am not so eager to dismiss what Arwel Parry has said. — Aluvus t/c 03:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I support it. Nobody uses the date preferences anyway. Over-linking is confusing. We can handle conflicts about date formatting if it pops up. We don't need a technical kludge to shut up a few noisy people. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Somebody obviously uses date preferences, because we're arguing about it. And I know of one for a fact - me :-) RossPatterson (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we get statistics on:
  • Registered versus unregistered users.
  • Registered users that have set a date preference.
Lightmouse (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
For every one person like me who edits Misplaced Pages, I see countless others who use Misplaced Pages but edit anonymously or not at all. Only a couple thousand people have made substantive contributions to Misplaced Pages articles according to this, compared to the millions of people who read the articles we write. —Remember the dot 17:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Well precisely. WP is not for us to read, but for the vast numbers of people all over the world who consult it—millions a day, isn't it? That is what concerns me about this debate: it's as though what WPians see on their screen is much more important than what our readers out there see. I care much more about those people at large, millions of them, who see blue splotches everywhere but no autoformatting—and in many cases have to put up with inconsistent formatting from one paragraph to the next, because for us, this is ironed out. That is why I've received comments from general readers to the effect of "WTF, why are all of the dates blue, and sometimes they're not even formatted consistently?". Tony (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Have the software use a default date format for those with no preferences, ask the developers to alter the date parser to display dates as plain black text. Problem solved with no further effort. — Aluvus t/c 05:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That still doesn't resolve the problem of editors being thoroughly confused at the inconsistent date formatting they would see when editing articles. It also would still produce inconsistent formatting if some editor didn't bother to wikilink, and would result in a terrible debate over whether the default formatting should be "25 December 2007" or "December 25, 2007". —Remember the dot 05:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you believe that a great number of editors are "thoroughly confused" by the date formats they currently see in the edit box? I haven't noticed this as a common complaint. I'm not sure this is a matter of "confusion" so much as aesthetics. And yes, dates that aren't linked may be different... but then if the autoformat system dies and someone fails to adhere to whatever date format a specific page uses (and a portion of them won't), you have the exact same problem. Except one that is harder for bots to sort out, because they have to evaluate which format is "right" for a given page. And if you think a debate about what date format is the default (which partisans can simply override and not be affected by) is scary, imagine the same basic debate, spread out over millions of articles. Heck, imagine a debate over whether to keep autoformating that involves people that don't visit MOSNUM. Dropping autoformating has its positives, but "avoiding big horrible debates" is clearly not one of them. — Aluvus t/c 10:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Alvulus, you pontificate in the expectation that the developers will race to do whatever is asked of them. They won't, and we ample evidence of that. Tony (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

One instance of the devs failing to read people's minds is "ample evidence"? Of what? — Aluvus t/c 05:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's start small

I propose that we start small. Let's change the citation templates, like Template:cite web and Template:cite news, to discourage use of the ISO format in favor of a format that is more clear. Currently these templates automatically wikilink dates that are in ISO format, in defiance of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates which suggests avoiding ISO.

Existing ISO format dates will continue to show up, but will not be automatically wikilinked. I will provide a JavaScript tool that enable users to quickly convert all ISO dates in an article to ] ] or ], ] format. This option leaves open the possibility of delinking those dates at a later time. —Remember the dot 17:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No no no. ISO format should be encouraged everywhere, recognized by the software (or a Common.js script?) and then displayed in the user's own preferred format when they view a page. — Omegatron 17:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Most users browse anonymously and do not have the luxury of user date preferences. —Remember the dot 21:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
So give it an international default. — Omegatron 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikilinks to dates in ISO format in the {{cite web}} template are displayed according to a user's date preference. I would not encourage changing all of those ISO dates to one format or the other. --Pixelface (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
How is this "starting small"? Starting small would be agreeing here on a course of action, then getting people that don't read MOSNUM to take a look at it, and then beginning to gradually implement it. Editing high-visibility templates is not "starting small". Additionally, linking ISO format dates is not in disagreement with MOSNUM; MOSNUM simply states that ISO dates are generally not used. They are used in those templates because linking an ISO date is very easy; if you try a different date format, you will find that it is linked improperly (the entire date is a link). If there is wide acceptance for not linking dates, then these templates will eventually just drop linking altogether.
Getting templates to support arbitrary unlinked dates (which in fact many don't, because they want to link the date) will eventually be important, but is something that should be addressed only once it is clear that there is general support for not linking dates. Changing these templates when there is not even consensus on this page to drop or revise the policy on date linking would be ridiculous. — Aluvus t/c 23:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The idea behind starting a discussion here was to reach consensus on whether or not to do this. It's not like I just slapped {{editprotected}} on all the templates. And I'm not asking to remove the wikilinking entirely at this point - just to stop using ISO-format dates on templates in favor of using familiar and unambiguous (and wikilinked) formats. —Remember the dot 01:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Further investigation indicates that {{cite web}}'s behavior is actually odd and inconsistent. It will pass a non-ISO date in the "date" paramater just as given, even if it is not a proper date format of any kind. ISO dates get linked, other data is passed as given. This matches the behavior of {{cite news}}'s date parameter. For the accessdate, however, it will apparently just turn whatever you give it into a link. This matches the behavior of {{cite}}'s date parameter.
This means that {{cite web}} would have to be altered before non-ISO dates could be entered into the accessdate parameter, and {{cite}} would need to be altered as well; just changing the documentation to encourage other formats is not adequate. Using your script to change dates out of ISO format (linked or otherwise) would also not be adequate. Other templates mostly seem to be "dumb" as regards dates, so it makes no difference for them.
In any event, given that the only format they seem able to automatically link correctly is ISO, and your second paragraph indicates that you specifically want them to stop linking ISO (for some reason), yes you are asking for the templates to remove their automatic wikilinking entirely. — Aluvus t/c 04:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the cite templates, {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} only add wikilinks to the date if it can be wikilinked simply. Compare
This bit of logic is not currently extended to the accessdate. It's a relatively recent addition even to the date. Gimmetrow 05:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of how the templates work. I was actually the one that got the date parameter to automatically wikilink at all. It hasn't been a month since this behavior was added, so there aren't too many articles that use it. At the time it seemed like a good idea, but now I see that it would be better to encourage more human-friendly dates.
I recommend that we remove the autolinking function from these templates entirely, and then use a semi-automated script to reformat the ISO dates. The script will add wikilinking per the current guidelines. For example, ] would become ], ] if the American formatting style is selected. This shouldn't be as controversial as removing the wikilinking entirely. Most of the users who have commented preferred avoiding the ISO format, which suggests that the community would support this idea. We would still need to advertise the discussion more before making the change. —Remember the dot 05:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The script for reformatting ISO dates is now available. Add
importScript('User:Remember the dot/ISO date format unifier.js')
to your monobook.js and let me know what you think! —Remember the dot 05:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message at the village pump asking for input. --Pixelface (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And from the MoS, 'ISO 8601 dates (1976-05-12) are uncommon in English prose, and are generally not used in Misplaced Pages. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness and ease of comparison.' This describes the reference list to a T. Why change what is not broken and allowed? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion fork

This debate is getting increasingly hard to follow, partly because of the number of strands, and partly because of a technical discussion concerning the detailed mechanics of automated links. To the extent that I can follow the discussion at all, it seems to me that Tony is suggesting that, where there is consensus, editors be permitted to write articles with internally-consistent dates, at least as an interim measure. Have I understood correctly? If so, why should any reasonable editor disagree? Thunderbird2 (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

2nd'ed. I came here from the VP and expected to see a proposal. Instead I see total chaos. I do not care to read this entire talkpage. Someone please make some sort of summary of what the problem is all of a sudden, why it needs fixed and what the proposals to do so, actually amount to. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I've given a better explanation of the proposal at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to reformat ISO dates in footnotes. —Remember the dot 21:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Remember the dot, that's just going to fragment the discussion even more, and ensure that newcomers will have no clue WTF is going on in this debate. That's a recipe for failure to reach consensus. People will say they couldn't follow all the frayed threads and blind alleys in this thing, and in the unlikely event of there being some sort of an outcome, will quite justifiably not respect it and not comply with it. You need to keep things structured, focused, and centralised. I'm interested, myself. But I really don't get it, yet.
I think you should now move the discussion entirely to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy), or keep it entirely here. Either way, let's have a summary for newcomers: of the proposal itself, and of people's opinions of it, OK?
– Noetica Talk 09:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, the discussion concerning my proposal is now taking place entirely at the village pump. In any case, it doesn't look like it'll achieve consensus, so it's pretty much dead anyway. But thanks for the advice! —Remember the dot 16:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, forking this discussion was a bad idea; see WP:CONSENSUS on forum shopping. I am marking the VP thread closed, and redirecting it back to here. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 01:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS says "An editor who thinks there are good reasons to believe a consensual decision is outdated may discuss it on the relevant talk page, through a Request for Comment, or at the Village Pump or Third Opinion to see what points other editors think are important, and to compare and examine the different viewpoints and reasons." Asking at the village pump is not forum shopping. --Pixelface (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

ISO format dates in citation templates

The discussion below was moved here from WP:VPP.

There is also a discussion going on at the the talk page of the numbers manual of style (oldid) where it's been proposed that editors stop using ISO-format dates (such as 2007-12-16) in citation templates like {{cite web}}. When an ISO format date is placed in the date field and wikilinked, (like ]), it will be shown according to a user's date preferences. Some editors are saying we should stop doing this. Input from the community would be appreciated. --Pixelface (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine how allowing the end-user to display the date in a fashion of their own choosing can be considered a bad thing... EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't see the problem with using ISO dates in citations. With autoformating, so long as the dates are wikilinked, there shouldn't be a problem. And even without autoformating, the ISO dates are far more compact. This isn't a case where readability is huge concern, such as it would be in-text. --Farix (Talk) 19:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Please keep ISO dates in the template parameters. — Omegatron 04:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've given a better explanation of the proposal below. —Remember the dot 21:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to reformat ISO dates in footnotes

The discussion below was moved here from WP:VPP

There's been quite a bit of discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) over the use of the ISO date format (2007-12-25) in footnotes. The general feeling is that ISO dates are unfamiliar to most readers, which could lead to confusion. Because of this, I propose that we:

  1. Change the citation templates to allow for date formats other than ISO.
  2. Use a JavaScript tool (which I have already written) to quickly reformat all ISO dates into a more human-readable format. For example, ] would become ], ] if the user editor selects that the article is to the use American date format, or ] ] if the user editor selects the British date format.
  3. Once the conversion is close to completion, change the citation templates to no longer wikilink ISO dates. This would encourage editors to convert the remaining ISO dates, as those dates would no longer be automatically wikilinked.

The JavaScript tool is available at User:Remember the dot/ISO date format unifier.js, but it will not work properly until the citation templates have been tweaked to allow non-ISO dates. —Remember the dot 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The above originally suggested that the users would be enabled to see their preferred format. It is however the editor that makes the choice. I can see the edit wars coming, reverting back and forth between formats. This is not a proper solution. Is there not a technical way to format according to the user's windows date settings? −Woodstone (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
User date preferences will still work. This proposal only changes what anonymous users and users without date preferences will see. Articles will basically follow the same guidelines we use for spelling: British for British articles, American for American articles, and whatever the first main contributor used for everything else. —Remember the dot 21:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I checked the JavaScript reference, and I do not believe that there is any good way to accurately guess what the user's date preference is. Web browsers do not appear to share this information with web pages. —Remember the dot 22:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The discussion at WP:MOSNUM has focused primarly on readers, most especially anonymous readers, and the inconsistent presentation of dates in articles they read. This is due not to the inconsitent manner in which they are entered, but rather to the lack of a default date preference on the English Misplaced Pages. Much of the argument could be resolved by giving a specific preference to anonymous users and users who have not expressed a preference. I strongly suspect that it wouldn't actually matter what preference was chosen, just that there actually be one. The MediaWiki software as it currently runs here is capable of doing this. I therefore propose, in counter to Remember the dot's proposal, that we establish a default date preference on the English Misplaced Pages of 'mdy both' (i.e., "16:12, January 15, 2001"), although I would not oppose the other obvious choice of 'dmy both' ("16:12, 15 January 2001"). RossPatterson (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Setting a default preference for anonymous users would lead to a terrible discussion over whether we should use "December 25, 2007" or "25 December 2007" as the default. It would be like saying we're only going to use American spelling from now on. It would also cause a discrepancy between what the source text of articles say (2007-12-25) and what users actually see (December 25, 2007). —Remember the dot 21:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
ISO dates have been perfectly acceptable on Misplaced Pages because it is a universal format as opposed to the date-month or month-date format. The only case where it may benefit to spell out the date is when it is in text of the article. But this change in footnotes and citations just trivial, fruitless, and without any real point. --Farix (Talk) 22:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The idea is to eliminate confusion by presenting dates in a format that users are more familiar with. Eliminating confusion is quite worthwhile. —Remember the dot 00:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of how this change would work.

Before: Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. Misplaced Pages, the 💕 (2007-01-02). Retrieved on 2007-01-02.
After American formatting: Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. Misplaced Pages, the 💕 (January 2, 2007). Retrieved on January 2, 2007.
After British formatting: Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. Misplaced Pages, the 💕 (2 January 2007). Retrieved on 2 January 2007.

After reformatting, the dates become significantly easier for the average reader to read and understand. —Remember the dot 00:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How many readers actually read what is in the references? Not very many, I would assume. These changes seem arbitrary and irrelevant and appears to be more of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT regarding to ISO dates. This is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist; therefore I would oppose prohibiting or reformatting ISO dates in references. --Farix (Talk) 00:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether ten people or ten thousand actually read the references. We have a way to improve those readers' experience with no negative effects. Why shouldn't we take it? ISO dates are very rare, especially in reference works like encyclopedias. Consequently, the reader has to stop and think about what the date means before they can understand it. That is not ideal. —Remember the dot 02:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I strongly object to this change. WP:ENGVAR, which is part of the basis of this reasoning as I understand it, was designed as a solution because there is no right answer for English variations. Dates, on the other hand, when treated as data rather than as prose, have an official international format which we can use - ISO. That's why we use it in the first place. We offer the ISO date customization in the preferences for registered users because it is convenient, when dealing with an individual user, to allow them to choose the format in which they would like to see dates. This is not the case for unregistered users, whose IPs are often shared by many users. ISO dates are not hard to understand, and our use of them is consistent across references. Our wikilinking of ISO dates can be corrected with a single edit to each template that does this. I see no need for our use of this to change. The format is also noted as being appropriate for list-style entries such as where it is placed. I see no problem with using this format - this appears to be a solution in search of a problem. If we could reliably give users date preferences which they would be most likely to prefer, that would be ideal, but in the meantime we should live with an acceptable standard where possible rather than some confusing and unneeded mélange of formats across articles. Nihiltres 03:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
No, that is not an "official standard" applicable to our use in Misplaced Pages. There is no such thing. The ISO standard is much, much more limited in its scope. You are applying it to areas which that standard does not address; we can imitate it in more general contexts, but that does not make it an official standard in those contexts. It simply is not applicable here; there is a good reason why your preferences page doesn't give that ISO standard number. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Readers who do look at the references will have to stop and "think" about the formating of the references anyways, so the formating of the date isn't going to mater. And having them think "a little more" isn't a bad thing either. Also the ISO date format is acceptable on tables as well and hasn't posed any problems. So there is no need to suddenly attempt to wipe them out. This is very much like an WP:ENGVAR issue and should be left well enough alone. If you really want standardization of dates, then I would suggestion adopting the ISO format since it is the only internationally recognized standard for formating dates. --Farix (Talk) 04:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - The compact ISO date format is documented for citation editors. Making editors choose from several formats is not an improvement. If display based on user preferences is wanted, that display ability should be added instead of forcing changes away from a standard format. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to have to type out the month every time I cite something and worry about whether the day should come first or second. It's easier to type 02 than February. There's a lower risk of typos. When I'm signed in, ] appears to me like "December 25, 2007" because I've set my date preferences to display it like that. When I'm not signed in, ] appears to me like 2007-12-25. If you put your cursor over "12-25", it displays http://en.wikipedia.org/December_25 in the status bar at the bottom of the browser. Unregistered users can still see that 12-25 means December 25 (although they may not realize that until they mouseover it).

For articles that were nominated for the 65th Golden Globe Awards, I've used this reference frequently, the list of nominations:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.goldenglobes.org/news/id/81 |title=HOLLYWOOD FOREIGN PRESS ASSOCIATION 2008 GOLDEN GLOBE AWARDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007 |accessdate=2007-12-16 |date=] |publisher=goldenglobes.org}}</ref>

Now you're saying I have to figure out if the day should come first or second on every article I use that citation in?

It needs to be determined how many unregistered users have complained about stuff like 2007-12-25 before ISO dates are disallowed from citation templates. --Pixelface (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, that shouldn't be in ALL-CAPS LIKE THAT, and "goldenglobes.org" is not the publisher, but the domain name of the publisher's web site, so you are using the template incorrectly. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 01:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
If you had gone to the URL, you would see that the title is is all caps like that. You don't think goldenglobes.org is the publisher? I think I'm using the template just fine. --Pixelface (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposal. We should be using ISO dates more often, not less. If you don't like the default user preference for formatting, get the developers to change it to something else. — Omegatron 04:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have two concerns. First, some citation templates have a provision to include a quote. Date formats within quotes should not be changed. Does remember the dot's Javascript know to not mess with dates within quotations?
Second, SMcCandlish's comment illustrates that citation templates are generally inadequate because they do not follow any style guide; each template contributor does his own thing. There are style guides (APA Publications Manual, for one) that specifiy that the capitalization of a title in a citation should be altered to follow the style guide's preferred capitalization. I imagine there are other guides that say to use the capitalization in the title as it appears in the publication, although I can't think of such a guide at the moment. But since the citation templates are not based on any style guide, there is no answer to the question of whether the Golden Globe related title should have been in all-caps or not. Since citation templates are inadequate, a date "solution" that confines itself to fixing citation templates is also inadequate. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Grouping of digits after the decimal point

See also Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 87#Spacing after the decimal point

An issue has arisen in Meter. User:Greg L has quite rightly edited the article so that instead of using a mixture of styles, it now uses commas to group large numbers into groups of 3 digits. However, there is still inconsistency in dealing with digits to the right of the decimal point. One example is:

Consequently, a practical realisation of the metre is usually delineated (not defined) today in labs as 1,579,800.762 042(33) wavelengths of helium-neon laser light in a vacuum.

Another example is "0.03937 inch".

I believe the Chicago Manual of Style says to not use spaces, commas, or anything other grouping symbol to the right of the decimal point, but as far as I can see, Misplaced Pages's MOS does not address this. So what should we do? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue of how to deal with the spacing of digits after the decimal point has arisen before. Some advocated leaving spaces every three digits and some leaving no spaces. No consensus was reached, which is why there is no guidance in the MOSNUM. Your views on that discussion are welcome. Thunderbird2 (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
My view isn't of much practical value. My view is that Bill Gates and his cronies should, in the early days of Windows, specified keyboards and software that would allow us to write SI measurements without having a PhD in computer science, which means non-breaking thin spaces, °, μ, and Ω right on the keyboard. Also, all software that accepts numbers should accept them with the agreed-upon digit grouping mark embedded.
I also believe that without grouping symbols, numbers are very difficult to read. If we can't agree to mix commas and spaces, we should only use spaces and forget about commas. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Your second point sounds practical enough. I think it is important to avoid long unbroken lists of digits after the point. I see nothing wrong with mixing commas and spaces, if that's what it takes. Thunderbird2 (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Advocating that Misplaced Pages abolish the use of commas to delimit digits in the mantissa would be about as successful as the BIPM trying to abolish the hour, ppm, and percent because they aren’t “part of the SI”: ‘p*ssing in the wind’. We will make better progress if we can focus our efforts on the proper treatment of digits to the right of the decimal point. Greg L (my talk) 00:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Grouping of digits: Specific proposal (obsolete)

Resolved – Replaced by newer proposal below.
  • I would like to weigh in on this issue with this proposal: The overriding principal of the SI with regard to technical writing and general written communications is to unambiguously and easily communicate in a language-independent fashion using internationally and well-recognized units, symbols, and style. For instance, even though percent and its symbol (%) are not formally part of the SI, it is recognized by the BIPM and ISO for use with the SI because it is widely recognized and simplifies communications.

    There are currently two practices for delimiting numbers in the mantissa: spaces, and commas. It’s currently a free-for-all in the decimal place and only two practices are observed: 1) delimiting with a space, or 2) no delimiting whatsoever. Clearly, long chains of decimals in a row are extremely hard to parse and demand to be delimited. Trying to get all contributors to provide spaces in the decimal portion of numbers would be difficult but I would hope that official Misplaced Pages policy would be that the preferred method of numeric notation to the right of the decimal place is to delimit every three digits with non-breaking spaces {exceptions would be 1) where the last group consists of four digits and 2) where a group of five digits is delimited so the last group comprises two digits}. Further, I would propose that Wikipeida would recognize that the best practice is to permit the use of reduced-size non-breaking spaces (i.e. <font size="-1">&nbsp;</font>), which is an SI-compliant form that observes best typography practices. Examples:

    Best typography practices:

    3.141 592 6535 and 1,579,800.762 04

    Acceptable delimiting:

    3.141 592 6535 and 1,579,800.762 04

    Further of course, the Euro practice of delimiting the mantissa with non-breaking spaces (preferably reduced-size ones) would also be acceptable.

    Clearly, my proposal also holds that practices like “1.414213562373095” should be strongly discouraged or prohibited.

    Greg L (my talk) 21:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Grouping of digits: Discussion

A minor objection: if someone cuts and pastes a number from Misplaced Pages (the normal article view, not the view seen when editing an article) to some computer program, there is a small chance the program will parse it properly if it use just commas or just spaces. If it has a mix, the chance of success goes from small to no chance at all. But people probably don't do that often enough to worry about it. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well that was an interesting point Gerry, so I checked it out and you’re right at all levels IMO. And as you further seemed to suggest, that’s not a deal breaker preventing consideration of the above proposal. “Chance” shouldn’t factor heavily into this consideration; effectively the only applications that could be impacted under this proposal are those that must “understand” numeric values. Today, that means Excel in the majority of cases. I entered the following values here in edit view, did a Show preview, and copied and pasted the following into Excel:

    1,579,800

    1,579,800.762045

    1,579,800.762 045

    1 579 800

    1 579 800.762

    1 579 800.762 045

    1 579 800.762045

    All the spaces are narrow, non-breaking ones coded as <font size="-1">&nbsp;</font>. Excel only treats the top two entries as numeric values. To see for yourself, just copy all seven entries, select a single cell in Excel, paste, and set up the adjacent column to multiply the pasted values by 2. Excel reports #VALUE! for the bottom five; Excel doesn’t care whether the spaces are regular, full-size spaces or these narrow, non-breaking ones. As you can see though, all the entries using Euro-style delimiting (spaces) in the mantissa (the bottom four entries) already aren’t compatible with Excel.

    I think it is clear that the readability benefits of delimiting to the right of the decimal point far outweighs this minor inconvenience. I’ve long edited all my articles this way and have had many occasions to copy the values to Excel. It’s easy enough to hand-delete the spaces after pasting; this paste/edit method best ensures accuracy. Too, I agree with your final conclusion: “people probably don't do that often enough to worry about it.” Note further that the only entries above that would become non-compliant under my proposal are the second one down and the last one (as well as this abomination: 1.414213562373095). Greg L (my talk) 00:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Most users have little interest in what the digits are at all. Those who do need the actual value are more likely to cut and past into a program like Excel than they are to write the digits down on paper. Removing any interfering spaces is error prone. It's too easy to accidently delete a digit in the process. This is a situation where Chicago and Redmond agree (no spaces to the right of the decimal point). That's a strong enough precedent for us to follow.--agr (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I second what Agr writes ... which is pretty much what I said last time this came up. I prefer the look of thin spaces either side of the decimal point but the ability to copy and paste into a program like Excel trumps this in my book. Moreover, {{formatnum:}} (used extensively by templates) gives commas before the decimal point and no delimination afterwards, we should keep consistant with this. Jɪmp 08:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I support the proposal. Readability results in fidelity because it allows editors to check the numbers. There is no point in facilitating a copy-pasting feature if we cannot check the numbers that are being copy-pasted. Therefore readability should come before pasteability. Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think needs of readers trump needs of editors. And I dare say most of the articles that contain very long decimal expansions are already written, and any change in format runs the risk of introducing new errors.--agr (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, readers' needs trump those of editors, which is why I support the proposal. The proposal facilitates a) readability and b) fidelity. Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
We can often check numbers by copying and pasting them. Talk readability but who actually reads "one point four one four two one three five six two three seven three zero nine five"? Jɪmp 15:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
re We can often check numbers by copying and pasting them. I doubt this practice is widespread, but if it is that would shift my position. Do you know any editors who check numerical values in this way? Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Besides myself, no, but I can't say I know of any editors' checking numbers any other way. Do you? Nor is it only a question of checking numbers but also of using them. What of the point about conistancy with the autoformatting function inbuilt in the software? Jɪmp 16:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Jimp, I didn't deliberately ignore that part. I do think that consistency is important, but I didn't understand the wiki code. Could you explain the point in plain English for me? Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a "magic word" which turns an unformatted number into a formatted one, e.g. {{formatnum:123456.789012}} gives you 123,456.789012. The formatting it uses is commas before and nothing after the decimal point. Unless we also use this elsewhere we'll end up with inconsistancy. Jɪmp 19:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point now. But, assuming that we can agree here on how we want the numbers to look (whether ungrouped, groups of 3 or other exotic grouping), can't the code be adjusted to do just that? Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed alternative: <span style="margin-left:0.2em"> 1.234567890. requires 39 characters per group as compared to 21 for a small nbsp. And commas could be used to the left of the decimal point, so it'd only be needed when there are large numbers of digits to the right.—Random832 16:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

However, personally I would support not using any spaces at all, with or without commas to the left of the decimal point. —Random832 16:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd also point out that we are not talking about a huge number of articles here. There's Category:Mathematical constants and Category:Fundamental constants and maybe some fundamental SI defs. Some of these articles follow the suggestion above, others group by five digits (which has the advantage of making the numbers to the right of the decimal point look different from those to the left) and some do not group at all, particularly when 10 digits or less. Almost all are very stable articles. At the very least, any proposed standards should be brought to the attention of the Math and Physics projects, though I think energies are best directed elsewhere.--agr (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Part of this discussion is whether anyone actually reads all those digits to the right of the decimal. While I seldom read them, I sometimes count how many there are, so I can understand what the precision of the number is. Grouping helps with this. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • All: Please examine the following example (from Kilogram):
The straightforward adjustment to this approach advanced by the group would instead define the kilogram as “the mass equal to 84,446,890 × 83⅓ atoms of carbon-12.” This proposed value for the Avogadro constant falls neatly within the measured value (≅6.02214184 × 10 vs. the 2006 CODATA value of 6.02214179(30) × 10) and the proposed definition of the kilogram produces an integer number of atoms in 12 grams of carbon-12, but not for 1 gram nor 1 kilogram.
The above is a classic example where a numeric value isn’t just barfed out onto a page just to demonstrate that someone did some amazing work to a precision of one part in six million, sometimes numbers must be understood (not memorized), and expressed in a way that allows them to be easily parsed. Why would someone make the claim that delimiting is only important for parsing digits to the left of the decimal point and isn’t needed to the right?
In my opinion, the only valid reason remaining for treating digits to the right of the decimal point differently (i.e. not delimiting) is when it comes to copying the values into Excel. It’s easy enough to copy into Excel and delete the spaces. I would think the readability advantages for all readers all the time more than makes up for the minor inconvenience for some of the readers some of the time of having to delete the extra spaces from copied values. This common-sense reality is why the European SI writing style delimits on both sides.
I would love to see {{formatnum:141421.35623731}} modified so it automatically generates 141,421.35623731 and further, I would hope that the template would support the expression of uncertainty in ‘concise form’ (the parenthetical suffix digits). By the way, I used “0.3em” here, which I think is easier to read. Greg L (my talk) 20:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Grouping of digits: New specific proposal using {{formatnum}}

UPDATE: Well, that was an interesting experiment. Jɪmp’s mentioning of span control (a feature I didn’t know about) offers a huge advantage. Please see preceding post from me for context. When numbers like this: 141,421.35623731

…are created simply by controlling pair kerning using “em”-based span control like this: 141,421.356<span style="margin-left:0.3em">237<span style="margin-left:0.3em">31

…you can paste the displayed values into Exel. This strikes me as a win/win. I would propose that the {{formatnum}} template be modified to generate ‘Excel-pasteable’ numbers like this, and further, that the template supports concise notation for uncertainties.

I’ve already updated Kilogram with span-controlled numbers. To see examples, examine the article starting here. As you will see, it will be a rare number indeed that simultaneously requires delimiting in both its mantissa and its decimal side. Values with expansive decimal sections requiring delimiting rarely have mantissas greater than three or four digits. In other words, a template that functions as I am proposing here would typically be used to generate values that are an “either/or” proposition: for any given value, the expansive portion requiring delimiting will usually only be found on one side of the decimal point.

I would specifically propose that {{formatnum:60451.02214179}} would return 60,451.02214179

…and variations of {{formatnum:6.0221417912}} would further generate the following values:
6.02214179
6.022141791
6.0221417912
6.02214179123

Further, I would propose that {{formatnum:6.02214179|30}} would return 6.02214179(30)

Go ahead, copy all four of the above maroon-colored values and paste them into Excel; works great.

Greg L (my talk) 22:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose: This weird spacing thing is only favored by mathematicians, and even then only some of them. It is not understood by most readers, and is not an appropriate usage in an general-purpose encyclopedia. Also, the code you provided is invalid. <span> must have a </span> or it must be <span ... /> And <br> should be <br /> (yes, I'm aware that the MediaWiki software is smart enough to compensate for the latter type of error, but this is no reason to use deprecated markup; our code, like our facts, ought to be exemplary. Speaking of which, it is also best to terminate CSS directives with ";", since others may be added later in which case they must be semicolon-separated: style="margin-left:0.3em;"— SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 01:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarification: If consensus actually comes out in favor of this spacing, I have to agree with Greg L that doing it with CSS to make the numbers copy-pastable is the way to do it, and with Jimp that the spacing should be thin, i.e. 0.2em. I still oppose this, however. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 04:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if this is adopted (and I think general readers will quail at it), the thin spaces are essential. The thinner the better. Tony (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
(Inserted mid-stream)
  • Very well, let’s examine both 0.2-em and 0.3-em spaces side-by-side. My first impression was that 0.2 em was nearly too small to be effective at its job of delimiting. So here are both styles juxtaposed next to each other:
0.2 em:
6.02241679
6.022416794
6.0224167942
6.02241679423

0.3 em:
6.02241679
6.022416794
6.0224167942
6.02241679423
Well… (let me go up and look at that again…) (*crickets chirping*) … It still appears to me that 0.2 em is too subtle. These examples are slightly different from earlier examples. I changed the above examples to omit the digit “1” next to a narrow space beause “1” uniquely gives itself some extra space. What remains here shows how most numeric strings would look. I think you will agree that without the help of the magic “1”, 0.2 em is too narrow. Maybe it’s a platform/OS thing. At least on my Mac, the 0.2-em option produces spaces that are nearly too narrow to be noticed. But if the consensus of everyone else here is that 0.2 em works and looks better, then I would accede to the group consensus. Greg L (my talk) 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Think again, my friend. I did check 0.2 em (as well as 0.1 em) & compare it to 0.3 em before making the suggestion. A platform/OS thing ... could be. I put it to you that nearly too narrow to be noticed is far better than so wide as to be mistaken for an ordinary space and thereby making the groups of digits appear to be seperate numbers. Jɪmp 00:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Show above is 0.2-em vs. 0.3-em spacing as seen in Safari under Mac OS X v10.3
  • Jimp, I don’t know why you would use seemingly charged wording such as “think again my friend”. I’m uncertain as to the tone you intended but wording like that comes across as if you think you are the only one capable of astute observations and rational thought. You must know that font handling is done far differently on different computer platforms and, even on the same platform, within different browsers. This alone might explain the difference in opinion. The purpose of my heading down this path of mentioning I’m on a Mac is it seems to me that 0.2-em spacing is too narrow. That you see the facts differently can be explained either as a difference of opinion or a difference in appearance between your computer and mine. Shown at right is what I’m seeing in the above comparison right now.

    So now the question to all of the rest of you (Jimp too) becomes: does the 0.2-em spacing shown in the picture at right match what you see?

    As for you Jimp, I just checked out your answer below. It seems I’ve accidentally gotten your hackles up and you’ve gotten steamed. I no longer appreciate your tone (it’s uncivil) and no longer care to participate here whatsoever. Goodby. Greg L (my talk) 02:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend any uncivility. Those were just words, poorly chosen but uncharged (or at least not intentionally). Sorry to have come off as I have. I don't think I'm the only one capable of astute observations and rational thought ... I'm begining to wonder whether I even am one of those so capable considering how badly I've managed to express myself. You haven't got any of my hackles up. Different systems, yeah, this could explain it. But those 0.3 em spaces in the picture still seem quite wide to me and the 0.2 em seem just right. It would perhaps also help to show us a bit of ordinary text with ordinary spaces for comparision's sake. Sorry again, Greg. Jimp 04:12, 21 December 2007

Jimp, apology accepted. Now let’s ‘get dirty’ in the technical details. Shown below are various ways of delimiting the remainder. To the right is how it appears on my system.

Show above is how various spacings appear in Safari under Mac OS X v10.3.9. I added the vertical rule to help discern the relative width of the numeric strings.


0.1 em:

6.02241679
6.022416794
6.0224167942
6.02241679423

0.2 em:

6.02241679
6.022416794
6.0224167942
6.02241679423

0.25 em:

6.02241679
6.022416794
6.0224167942
6.02241679423

0.3 em:

6.02241679
6.022416794
6.0224167942
6.02241679423

&nbsp;

6.022 416 79
6.022 416 794
6.022 416 7942
6.022 416 794 23

0.4 em:

6.02241679
6.022416794
6.0224167942
6.02241679423

Shown above is how
delimiting appears with
live text on your
system.

As you can see, my system (at least) does not treat 0.25 em different from 0.3 em. Also on my system, 0.3 em is about midway between 0.2 em and a non-breaking space. How does this all appear on your systems? A subjective but simple way to communicate the appearance on your system is just to declare whether or not the text-based version (on the left) appears similar to the photo on the right. To my eye, the 0.2-em option on the right (what I see) seems too crowded; that is, the delimiting is hard to discern. Greg L (my talk) 06:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)





  • Strong support: Readers have no problem understanding what they’re looking at when they see delimiting in the decimal portion. It’s been that way for years on a number of Misplaced Pages’s technical articles and even novice readers haven’t done a single one of their “drive-by shootings” to change values to a non-delimited style. And for good reason: it’s obvious what they’re looking at. It does’t matter what technical means is used within Misplaced Pages to make the template work; if there is a way to do it so values can be posted into Excel and still be numeric quantities, then that’s clearly the way to go. We also don’t have to modify an existing template; a new one could be made. Too, no one has to use the template. It would simply be available for articles that could really use it. Greg L (my talk) 01:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: As per SMcCandlish, to the vast majority of Misplaced Pages readers, whitespace separates numbers from the things around them, it doesn't group digits. I can't believe we're discussing the supposed-goodness of embedded space in numbers and the supposed-evil of ISO-8601 dates in citations on this page at the same time. Shouldn't Scotty be warning us about mixing matter and anti-matter right about now? RossPatterson (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Second choice: Various publications that have to deal with many digits to the right of the decimal have adopted a variety of ways to deal with it. I suggest that people are used to the idea of long strings of digits usually being grouped in some way, and are accustomed to having to figure out what each publication is up to. I would prefer to use only narrow spaces, but comas to the left and spaces to the right would be my second choice. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I favour this weird spacing (I suppose this therefore makes me a mathematician). Actually, what I favour is the full SI style with digits grouped into threes delimited by thin spaces either side of the decimal point (i.e. no commas) ... what Gerry said. This <span style="margin-left:0.3em;"> is a perfect solution to the copy-&-pastability problem, note also that these spaces are non-breaking (an essential feature).
    I would, however, suggest that 0.2em be used instead of 0.3em: it's thin spaces rather than ordinary ones which we want, i.e. spaces a fifth (or a sixth) of an em wide (according to Space (punctuation)#Table of spaces). As Ross notes above, "whitespace separates numbers from the things around them": ordinary width spaces are too thick, we need a different space (a thinner one) if we're to use it to group digits.
    One question, though, does <span style="margin-left:0.3em;"> display correctly in common browsers? This is the consideration is that killed the use of &thinsp;. If this is to be implimented I would suggest, for consistency, that {{formatnum:}} be modified rather than have {{formatnum-therival:}} created.
    I'd support an across-the-board adoption of SI spacing ... if only it had a snowflake's chance in Hell of gaining consensus. To me it's all or nothing: all numbers (when written as decimals) should conform to one standard format. Commas before & nothing after is the standard in place. Adoption of a new standard; i.e. commas-then-thin-spaces or, better still, thin-spaces-then-thin-spaces; has my thumbs up (for what that's worth) iff (yeah, I s'pose I must be a mathematician) it's applied to everything.
    Are we going to get everyone on board? Commas-then-nothing is common practice in English. It seems to me next to impossible to change this flow & get all editors to use a new standard ... and use it via the revised {{formatnum:}} (or whatever other thing we pull out of our hat) for fat breaking non-copy-&-pasteable spaces are not what we want. Jɪmp 02:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
SI is clearly a wonderful thing, and it is so because it doesn’t unnecessarily push the “Euro” way of doing things over the “U.S.” way, nor visa versa. The SI acknowledges and embraces practical reality. “Full SI writing style” recognizes delimiting via either commas or narrow spaces in the mantissa because that’s the reality of the American style of delimiting numbers. Like it or not, there’s simply no fighting it; that style is extraordinarily common and well entrenched—both in print and on the Web. Misplaced Pages—like the BIPM and their SI—can’t find itself in the position of trying to promote change in the way the world works by pretending to adopt a single style of numeric notation that isn’t well recognized in the U.S. The whole point of encyclopedias is to unambiguously and clearly communicate. Intuitively easy, familiar writing customs must be observed. There is no “right” or “wrong” with regard to commas or narrow spaces in the mantissa—not according to SI and not according to common sense simply because the English-language version of Misplaced Pages is read by readers in both Europe as well as the U.S. Accordingly, Misplaced Pages (and in the SI) recognizes both methods.

We don’t have to agree that Misplaced Pages should adopt one style or the other with regard to delimiting the mantissa…nor should we. We can simply make two versions of a numbering template (or an option to check in a single template). Trying to necessarily link the treatment of the decimal portion to how we delimit the mantissa will only doom to failure any efforts here. We should address only one issue: should a template be made to make it easier to delimit the decimal portions to make long strings easier to read(?). My point would be that narrow spaces are so damn easy to read, that even a novice who has never seen it before instantly understands what it’s all about. And in articles where numbers are important, delimiting is crucial because long strings of non-delimited digits to the right of the decimal point unusable to the point of being barbaric. There should be an easy way for others to do so (rather than hand-coding it all). Greg L (my talk) 03:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I'd got it into my head that SI suggested thin spaces either side ... I could be wrong. You write "narrow spaces are so damn easy to read, that even a novice who has never seen it before instantly understands what it’s all about." I agree (as long as the spaces are thin).
You mention Europe but this is the English Misplaced Pages, what they do on the European mainland is not our concern, what do we Americans, Canadians, Irish, British, New Zealanders, Australians, ... do? Of course there is no right or wrong but there is standard practice in English ... which, for better or worse (yeah, I agree, worse), is commas-then-nothing (either side of either pond, as far as I'm aware).
No, we don't have to agree on what's done before the decimal point but I'm not keen on the idea that we should just leave that issue aside. In my book these are one and the same issue. Consistency is what we should strive for. There should, I say, be one standard format and therefore one {{formatnum:}} which produces it with no optional formatting (note also that this is {{formatnum:}} not {{formatnum}} ... a "magic word" no template ... ordinary folk like us can't edit it). If "Trying to necessarily link the treatment of the decimal portion to how we delimit the mantissa will only doom to failure any efforts here.", so be it. Jɪmp 04:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
(Inserted mid-stream)
  • Jimp, the notion that the English-language version of Misplaced Pages is an “American thing” and therefore follows American conventions is a common misperception that editors get corrected on soon enough with their first edit war of the subject. The subject is covered in Misplaced Pages: Manual of Style: Disputes over style issues. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the UK, and Western Europe (wherein the English language is widely spoken and serves as the “Universal Translator” bridging the different languages) all use British English. Word has, it the English invented the English language so Misplaced Pages officially allows articles to be written per British English to serve these English-speaking countries. There are a variety of differences between British and American English. Near-parenthetical asides and clauses—like this clause—are set open with spaces on both sides of the em-dash in British English. “Realize” is spelled “realise”, the decimal point is a comma and numbers are delimited with spaces. Accordingly, the “Energy” content on a food’s nutrition label is 85,3 calories. Yes, they express the energy content to greater precision than in America. And as you can see, they can't use commas to delimit the mantissa because the comma serves as the decimal marker in British English.

    Misplaced Pages policy (and the every-day practices here on all of Misplaced Pages’s articles) is clear: Both European (British) English and American English are recognized as correct. The hat is tipped to one way or another based mainly on two criteria: 1) The style the first major contributor to an article used becomes the standard for that article, and 2) if the subject is about a country or subject that is closely attached to a particular country, then that country’s spelling, punctuation, and formatting conventions would be observed. If you don’t believe me, check out Metre / Meter and note that it uses British English throughout. Go try and “correct” realise to realize. May God be with you. ;-)

    Note further that Misplaced Pages’s supposed even-handed policy regarding national conventions isn’t as even handed as it seems; Misplaced Pages has standardized on using a full-stop (.) as a decimal point. Europeans readily adapt to reading the style used in their countries and to reading the American style, which is heavily represented in print, the Web, and (especially) in scientific literature. So…

    Americans are already getting their way with the decimal point. Further, most Misplaced Pages articles use commas to delimit the mantissa. It’s the well recognized American way of doing things that Europeans readily recognize and accept. This leaves only the issue of delimiting the decimal side of things. It’s a straightforward solution.

    If, as you say, there should be one format, then IMO, it should be comma-delimited mantissa|full-stop decimal separator|narrow space-delmited remainder. That is the closest to a universal method that one can obtain. Although highly biased towards American conventions, Europeans are quite flexible because they speak multiple languages and are familiar with entirely different formatting styles.

    Lest I seem biased towards the American-way of doing things, I’m not. I just realize that there is no fighting the ever-expanding method of American writing style. I’ve worked with a Swedish-American engineer. He was bragging to a Swedish friend of his who was visiting. The engineer told him he had presented a scientific paper at an English-speaking conference. “Wow” said his friend. And he had done it in American English. “Wow” said his friend. Personally, I do all my design in metric (it’s the only way to go) and only do final conversion to inches etc. when the prints go to a machine shop. There are a variety of European conventions I like. My wife and I visited a number of European countries this summer. The ground floor on elevators are level “0” (zero). The floors above are 1, 2, etc. The first level below (the top-most) basement is -1, then -2 etc. How logical is that? My main point is that I don’t want to come across as biased for advocating an American way of doing things.

    Trying to format numbers in a European way would baffle Americans. Conversely, the American way of formatting numbers is readily accepted by other English-speaking countries simply because they are more sophisticated than Americans (don’t bother whining to me about that statement; it’s true). So it’s a simple solution: comma-delimiting of mantissas, ful-stop decimal marker, and narrow spaces for the remainder. That’s what will work best given what reality has thrown us. Greg L (my talk) 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"the notion that the English-language ... Misplaced Pages is an “American thing” and therefore follows American conventions is a common misperception that editors get corrected on soon enough ..." Absolutely, I've been known to do such correction. "Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the UK, and Western Europe ... all use British English." ... Yeah, try tell that to an Aussie ... oh, you are ... no we don't. Australians use Australian English, Canadians use Canadian English, etc. How many Aussies, Canadians and Kiwis do you hear talking lorries and aubergines? So in British English "... the decimal point is a comma ..." I don't believe you're right there and I'd be willing to put money on it ... a lot of money. However, supposing you are right ... there's further proof that British English is different from Australian English 'cause you never see that in Austrlia (except on stuff from Europe ... mainland Europe). Misplaced Pages policy ... Misplaced Pages policy is somewhat more sophisticated than "both American and European English are okay" ... no the authors of this policy realise (yeah, that's how I spell it too) that there are more tahn two dialects of the language. Check Metre out ... Greg, are you still talking to me? 'cause, look at the history of Metre: I've edited twice this month. "Trying to format numbers in a European way would baffle Americans." Australians too ... all English speakers I believe. Yes, if any god exist, may he be with you too. Jɪmp 00:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Err, no. The use of the comma as the decimal delimiter is a feature of various European languages such as French and German. In the English language the decimal delimiter is always a full stop, whatever version of English is being used. If you see a figure in an article in the English Misplaced Pages which uses a comma as the decimal delimiter and full stops to denote thousands, millions, etc., then it is an error which should be corrected immediately. -- Arwel (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thin space digit grouping is not part of SI; the official brochure that describes it says nothing about how to group digits, but it does use the thin space. I believe it is one of the ISO standards that specifies the thin spaces. reprints Resolution 7 of the 9th CGPM, 1948, "Writing and printing of unit symbols and of numbers" on pages 41 and 42 which states "In numbers, the comma (French practice) or the dot (British practice) is used only to separate the integral part of numbers from the decimal part. Numbers may be divided in groups of three in order to facilitate reading; neither dots nor commas are ever inserted in the spaces between groups."
An example of a predominantly American organization that uses thin spaces in its publications is the IEEE. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC), revised 19:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
(Inserted mid-stream)
The BIPM, at Rules and style conventions for expressing values of quantities; 5.3.4 Formatting numbers, and the decimal marker takes the formal position that the decimal marker “shall be either” the full-stop or comma. It also says digits may be grouped by a thin space but not by commas or full-stops. Here’s where reality diverges from resolutions of the BIPM. The percent and its symbol (%) are not part of the SI but the BIPM and ISO “recognize” or “acknowledge” its use with the SI because it is internationally well recognized. The same goes for the hour and minute; only the second is the SI unit of time but the BIPM recognizes the use of the other units of time because they are well recognized. The subtext of this is the BIPM knew they would be fighting a loosing battle if they tried to get the world to use a decimal-based time system. I can’t find it at the moment, but I’m quite sure the BIPM does the same with “acknowledging” the use of commas to delimit the mantissa. If they don’t, they clearly should. The simple reality is that no matter what the hell happens here in our little island within Misplaced Pages, we won’t be changing the way Americans write their mantissas or expect to see them in writting in an encyclopedia. The American style of delimiting with commas is recognized throughout the world and isn’t going away. Greg L (my talk) 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Gerry Ashton is absolutely correct. (He shouldn't have struck out his comments, assuming without checking that he is the one who did so; if he didn't do so and someone else did it that is entirely inappropriate.) The "thin" adjective in the latest version of the BIPM brochure is an addition by the BIPM that is not supported by any decision of the CGPM or CIPM. It is a new addition in the 2006 brochure; the prior version merely said "Numbers may be divided in groups of three in order to facilitate reading; neither dots nor commas are ever inserted in the spaces between groups." It likely comes from the ISO, though an exact quote from an ISO standard would be appropriate here. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that that BIPM even couches their statement of the rule in legalese, using the terminology "Following" with respect to the 2003 CGPM resolution as an indication that it "is not contrary to" those resolution, even though not everything in the BIPM statement is supported by that resolution. The 2003 resolution deals primarily with the decimal point, and merely quotes the 1948 resolution when it 'reaffirms that "Numbers may be divided in groups of three in order to facilitate reading; neither dots nor commas are ever inserted in the spaces between groups", as stated in Resolution 7 of the 9th CGPM, 1948.' No mention of "thin" spaces. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's why I'd got that idea into my head. On another note: suppose {{formatnum:}} could be tweaked such that the user could go to his/her "preferences" and choose his/her number formatting scheme. The defualt would remain commas-point-nothing but there'd be the option of commas-point-spaces or spaces-point-spaces (or some other option, perhaps). Then we'd have the best of both worlds. Of course, it would be up to the developers to impliment such a thing ... and considering how promptly they're dealing with the disentanglement of date autoformatting and linking, let's not get our hopes up. Jɪmp 06:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This should use a class rather than inline CSS - so that a user can override it in their monobook.css. —Random832 13:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I still support the proposal. Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong oppose. But really, this section is a total disgrace. How can anyone even work out what precise proposal is currently being considered? You'll never achieve a consensus that commands respect if you don't, as initiators and major contributors to such a discussion, keep it orderly and understandable.
Nevertheless, the proposal appears to be for some kind of spacing between groups of digits after the decimal point. I'm against that for a few reasons. The main one: it should not even be considered until other more fundamental issues are settled. Everyone's so busy pushing particular detailed proposals, and very few editors are giving sustained attention to structural, procedural, and broader substantive matters for WP:MOS and its satellite pages. But without such effort, these innumerable smaller issues will never be reliably settled. Small factions of editors will wrestle energetically in various corners until they get bored or tired; others will either know nothing about the issue they address, or look the other way in dismay, or completely fail to grasp the issue in a forest of ill-managed verbiage. Who here, apart from SMcCandlish, has so much as glanced at the hard-space issue, raised at WT:MOS and now with its own dedicated discussion page that I have set up? Yet memorable, understandable, typable markup for the hard space is a blindingly obvious requisite for well-formatted text in Misplaced Pages – especially for numeric and scientific formatting such as this section addresses. Let's get issues into some sort of order of priority, rather than just plunging forward. What we imagine is forward, that is.
– Noetica Talk 04:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Well Noetica, your response is awfully damned amusing since you voted “Strong oppose” and then, given that you wrote “the proposal appears to be for some kind of spacing between groups of digits”, you professed to not really understand what exactly the proposal is that you voted on! Your confusion is doubly amusing given that the first five paragraphs that started this subsection clearly laid out the proposal and the virtues it offers; the rest was just voting and debate on implementation of the details. You should read more before being so anxious to play the role of den mother and admonish others for not being as logical and organized as you pretend to be. The above mishmash (everything that occurred after the initial posted proposal) is clearly the product of free-form debate by “many cooks in the kitchen”. If you’re going arrive late to a party, don’t complain that you don’t understand what’s going on, especially when it starts out clear enough for anyone to understand. Greg L (my talk) 00:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Greg L, that is a blatantly personal attack, and should be withdrawn. Please focus on the policy page, not contributors. I agree with Noetica's points. Tony (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
You may denigrate it as merely amusing, Greg L. But as one of those responsible for the chaotic spaghetti of discourse in this section you ought rather to take note and to be ashamed. To answer one of the few specific points you have succeeded in making, I strongly opposed any proposal for spacing of numbers after the decimal point. Don't blame me if the exact proposal supposedly under consideration is not cleanly and clearly set out, in one location that all can refer to. That wasn't my doing! You say, at the location you point to (already way back), things like this: "I would propose...". For Jimbo's sake, make a proposal; lay it out in a neat paragraph or so, in bold. Set it off from everything surrounding it, and then call for comments and votes. If, in your quaint American-boyish way, you take my contribution here as that of a "den mother", then I put it to you that editors labouring away so unreadably and with such futility might indeed stand in need of overseeing. But I'm not about to undertake that task, which is both impossible and un-Wikipedian. Especially given your response, showing that you are immune to criticism from one who takes MOS matters very seriously, and is very attentive to issues that impede progress. It is ridiculous to assert as you do that anyone can follow what's happening here.
No more sophomoronic clash of personalities here, please. There are issues to address. Please address them.
– Noetica Talk 01:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You’ve already made your fantastically well-considered vote and I don’t expect that anything I write here will make one twit of a difference in how you vote. I agree, the “chaotic spaghetti of discourse” is hard to track. That’s still no excuse for voting on an issue you admit to not even understanding! What’s wrong with you that you can’t see that? I didn’t do the page layout on this section; it’s the product of many people in a rapid back & forth debate. You could go in a clean it up just as well as anyone else here but I don’t see you volunteering. Given the history of your contributions (music-related topics), I also am quite skeptical that your interest in this topic is anything more than just passing. Tony: as regards alleging I made a “personal attack” here’s what the Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks article says:

There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:

  • Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
  • Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
  • Threats of legal action.
  • Threats of violence, particularly death threats.
  • Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages.
  • Threats or actions which expose other Misplaced Pages editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why.

As you can see, saying that I think what you wrote is hogwash and is without merit falls about a light-year short of “personal attack” as defined by A) common sense, and 2) Misplaced Pages. I’m saying your idea sucks, as was your fundamental position on this subject, as was the way you went out of your way trying to take the high road and seek out ways to criticize others who don’t produce well laid-out discussions pages so you can arrive late in the game and have to actually read and parse what’s here to understand it! Too bad. I have my opinion on the constructiveness of what I call your “drive-by shooting” on this topic: just enough of a cursory visit to make a glib pronouncement of how everyone hasn’t done a good enough of a job to meet your lofty standards. A “total disgrace”(?) P-u-h-l-e-e-z-e. Do you think the people here trying to hammer out technical details of delimiting numeric strings need some sort of benediction from you when you arrive late to the discussion? Just who in the world do you think you are? You want me to retract what I truly feel? That’s my opinion of what you wrote above and I’m sticking to it. Do you think Misplaced Pages gives you the entitlement of being free of well-deserved criticism and critical commentary on every damn thing you write? Everyone on Misplaced Pages deserves to be free from “personal attacks” as defined as Misplaced Pages above, and everyone needs to be treated civilly. Simultaneously, I can call B.S. garbage that anyone writes as I see it: “garbage”. If you disagree with me on this, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Finally, I am quite done dealing with you—or anyone else for that matter—here in this forum. Don’t chase me down and leave messages on my talk page. I don’t have to deal with you any more and I don’t have to deal with this topic here any more. OK? You won’t have to be all indignant over how Greg L didn’t give you a pat on your head for what you wrote because I’m done here. Goodbye. Greg L (my talk) 06:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

<giggle> Tony (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, a perfectly good proposal was being discussed here, and now it's gone to rats. Is Noetica seriously suggesting that we first must participate in MOS before gaining the right to discuss numbers here? (I don't see how else to interpret
  • Who here, apart from SMcCandlish, has so much as glanced at the hard-space issue, raised at WT:MOS and now with its own dedicated discussion page that I have set up?)
If so, I certainly hope that is not the point that Tony is agreeing to. Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
T-Bird, almost two weeks ago you wrote, in this very section:
The issue of how to deal with the spacing of digits after the decimal point has arisen before. Some advocated leaving spaces every three digits and some leaving no spaces. No consensus was reached, which is why there is no guidance in the MOSNUM. Your views on that discussion are welcome.
The first thing to observe about this is that your link takes us nowhere. Presumably the material has been archived; but it is a mark of the way this discussion has been conducted that no one seemed to notice – until I point it out now. I made a reasonably diligent search, and could not read or even find the relevant earlier discussion. Why is this so? Why did you not check your link, and fix it? How can I be accused of not following things up?
Second, it is interesting that no consensus was reached that last time. Why do you suppose that is? And, much more importantly, what lessons has anyone here learned from that failure? As I have more or less pointed out, you need to structure things so that such history can be retrieved and learned from.
Third, there is a great deal of bumbling here about what various authorities say. A passing mention of CMOS (Chicago Manual of Style), and no mention of any British authority (though I myself consulted Hart's Rules before making my contribution above). As for the SI side of things, I see that a 1997 document eventually got on the table. Better, I think, to consult something more recent, as I did myself before commenting here (see Bureau International des Poids et Mesures: The International System of Units (SI), 8th edition, 2006). Of course, it's possible that I missed something else: but my point then is that it's very hard to find these things, among all your words.
Fourth, if "a perfectly good proposal was being discussed here", let's see the damn thing, in all of its perfect clarity. That way there just might be a coherent discussion that has some wan hope of gaining consensus for or against, and which others will later respect. If you don't do that, this will be just another time-wasting talk-fest that falls into the same black hole as the earlier discussion that we can't seem to unearth any more.
– Noetica Talk 12:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Noetica, I do not pretend that all is well laid out, but the first line of the discussion reads
That link will take you to the archived discussion. What was proposed then (you won’t find an explicit proposal because it took the form of this edit directly to MOSNUM) was the deprecation of spaces after the decimal point.
The new proposal by Greg L is the opposite one: a preference for spaces (every three digits) after the decimal point.
In both cases I am paraphrasing, but I think I have captured the essence. The reason that no consensus was reached (then and so far again now) is that some editors favour the spaces and some don’t. I see nothing wrong in that, although an unfortunate consequence is that MOSNUM remains silent on the issue. That we continue to discuss it at all is a good thing, and certainly not a “time-wasting talk-fest”.
Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I admit I can't tell whether the proposal was lost in the fighting, or consensus was reached for no change, or what, but just in case, I support it. As for exactly what I'm supporting: any automatic, preferably user-preference configurable but I'm still in favor if we can't do it, that defaults to commas to the left of the decimal, hard spaces or 0.3 em spaces (I don't care) to the right. This is readable, will not be so unfamilar to anyone as to be offputting, and will clarify an otherwise-unclear area of editing. Good things, all. atakdoug 04:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

wp:units cf WP:UNITS

WP:UNITS is the shortcut to the MOSNUM section on units. I have noticed recently that wp:units does not link to MOSNUM, but to an archived discussion entitled Measurements Debate. Assuming this is not deliberate, does anyone know how to fix it? Thunderbird2 (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to work now. Thanks for fixing it, whoever you are :) Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank Crissov. Jɪmp 15:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to observe that there is no consensus in favor of "wp:something" shortcuts to begin with, and they tend to get MfD'd. I guess it is nice that the two are consistent now, but wp:units should probably just be deleted. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Dates in English-speaking nations.

The MOS currently says, "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should generally use the more common date format for that nation."

What I want to know is, why is this limited to English-speaking nations? That's just bizarre. ISO dates aside, which are common in Asia, all nations use either day-month-year or year-month-day, regardless of whether the month name is April or Avril or Aprile or Abril.

Gerry Ashton says, "is an English language encyclopedia, and should always use one of the English-language date styles, even if writing about a country where English is not spoken." Well, of course. No argument there. My point is that even where English is not spoken, we may easily determine what date format that nation uses and render it in one of the English language styles. --Pete (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If we happened to come across a country that used a date style that was unfamiliar to English-speakers, say, 18 XII 2007 for 18 December 2007, we would want to use one of the English language date styles. Also, someone might read it to mean that we should use the calendar that is in common use in a non-English speaking country, as well as the date style. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no doubt that we should use one of the English-language date styles in our articles. This is an English-language encyclopaedia, after all. But I can't see why the 1 Avril 2007 of France cannot be directly translated to 1 April 2008. Is this not plain common sense? --Pete (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If the customary date format in a country is similar to an English-language format, by all means use it. But unless we can find an authoritative source to say that every country in the world uses a date format that is similar to one of the English language formats, the MOS should either stay as it is, or become longer and more cumbersome, and suggest using the English language format that is closest to the format in the country. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty easy to find out what format a country uses. Some nations, such as Canada, routinely use both formats. I'm proposing that the MOS become shorter, by eliminating the words "English speaking" from the sentence quoted in the first post in this thread. The MOS used to have a list of nations, and then that was changed to a link to a list showing which nations used which format, and more recently we seem to have lost that list and we've gained this "English-speaking" restriction, which doesn't appear to have been discussed at all. --Pete (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Gerry, are you a ham? "18 XII 2007" is the date-form commonly used in that community specifically because we don't all share the same language and sets of month-names. Here's hoping it doesn't get used on Misplaced Pages! RossPatterson (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and I have seen this notation on QSL cards, but didn't know if it was specific to hams, or was customary in the country where the sender lived. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
ISO dates aside, which are common in Asia, all nations use either day-month-year or year-month-day, regardless of whether the month name is April or Avril or Aprile or Abril. Um, no: the U.S. uses month-day-year. --Tkynerd (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely correct. And that's what I meant to say. Thanks for pointing it out! --Pete (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The Roman numeral month format is also found on many ITU communications (http://www.itu.int). Dl2000 (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (Outdent) Ah, just as I was about to tweak the text according to the point raised here, I realised that the issue is partly solved by the first guideline: Two date formats are acceptable .... Is it necessary to complicate the text by adding that "In articles that are related to other countries that commonly use one of the two acceptable guidelines above, that format is generally used."? I'm unsure this level of detail is necessary, but let us know if you foresee problems, say, with an article related to Hong Kong or Nigeria. Tony (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Default date format

It would be useful to avoid the "English-language nation" issue and instead consider a default date format to take care of:

  1. Nations where date formats are unclear, unknown, inconsistent, or otherwise not fitting the two main date format choices;
  2. The many WP articles which have no identifiable national identity.

There are compelling reasons to consider the international/little-endian format for the default (e.g. 18 December 2007) as opposed to American/middle-endian format (e.g. December 18, 2007):

  1. d-m-y/little-endian format is in a logically progressive order;
  2. d-m-y format is most prevalent internationally, in English and non-English nations alike;
  3. Many international agencies such as the UN go with little-endian dates in their communications e.g. http://www.un.org/news/.

Note that the "endian" stuff, and something of an international date format overview, can be found in Date and time notation by country. Dl2000 (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This would solve a lot of problems, but create a lot more. Personally, I've grown up with day-month-year, and it makes a good deal of sense to have units in progressive order, rather than month-day-year, which chops and changes. It would probably make even more sense to have dates in year-month-day order, which is how I often label batches of computer files for ease of sorting.
However, the simple fact about Misplaced Pages is that although it is a global project, most of the editors and readers are Americans, because that is where the internet is, mostly. If the default order was day-month-year, it would look odd and foreign to most. I'm not going to try converting the US to a more logical date format; it would work about as well as converting to a decimal system of measurements instead of the archaic pints and feet and pounds and miles and stuff currently in use. That's a task for other people.
I think we've got to find the best possible compromise, and we've pretty well catered for it with autoformatting, kludgy though that is, and presenting dates in the format best fitted to the subject. --Pete (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The d-m-y format, without pesky punctuation, is by far the better format, IMV. But I think it's wrong to impose it on American readers throughout WP, just as imposing British spelling would be wrong. That is why I proposed the "country-related, otherwise first major editor's choice adhered to" rule, which mirrors our longstanding policy and practice for variety of English. It's consistent with WP's existing practice and makes perfect sense to me. I don't know why people are proposing that everyone be forced to use one date formatting. Tony (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
To be clearer, the suggestion was not to impose the default d-m-y on American-related articles which can (and should) continue to use m-d-y. Again, this would be a default to help with cases such as the "non-English nation" situation which started this whole thread.
Regarding the practice of "first major editor's choice adhered to" - wouldn't that risk some potential conflicts with WP:OWN?
The ideal and ultimate solution remains to implement an upgraded autoformatting mechanism that generally addresses the linking and date range concerns of late. Part of this upgrade could allow unregistered readers to set the date pref. Dl2000 (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Yes, I agree entirely. American format dates for the U.S. (and the Phillipines), International format dates everywhere else. Canadians can pick their own. --Pete (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I assume it's pretty much impossible without dev interaction to geo-locate anon-IPs and provide a reasonable default date format for them (should we able to get auto date formatting working without auto linking)? --MASEM 15:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's a useful solution, and it would be nice to have, but probably uneccessary. Most people can understand what date is specified when the month is named rather than numbered, regardless of whther it is the first or second term. Even if you are used to one format, the other isn't total gibberish. For articles about the U.S., I think it's reasonable that people see one format, for articles about European nations, another. Prefs can hide this, but for readers without accounts, we're not going to flummox them entirely. It's comparable to the British/American spelling thing; seeing "harbour" instead of "harbor" (or vers vica) isn't going to confuse any but the dimmest bulbs. --Pete (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Strong national ties to a topic Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should generally use the more common date format for that nation." It's still not quite right. Venezuela has strong ties to the US and uses American English, but its dates follow the British format. We need to reflect local customs, which don't strictly adhere to ENGVAR. The current wording still sounds like "that nation" refers to the US, rather than local Venezuela custom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "topics with strong ties" means more like Politics of the United States being a topic with strong ties to the US, not Venezuela - i.e. it's talking about close relationship of topics, not diplomatic closeness of non-english-speaking nation to english-speaking ones. —Random832 13:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Date format fixer scripts

I've lost track of which script does what now. Could Remember please list them here in one spot? Also, does one of them take linked dates, format them consistently to US or UK, and leave them linked? Gimmetrow 16:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested change to make text more accurate

The phrase relating to autoformatting:

  • "It works only for users who are registered,"

is somewhat misleading. I propose that it says something like:

  • "It works only for users who are registered and have set a preference,"

Comments? Lightmouse (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Support: This is true and I'm sure that there are a good number of us who haven't set preferences (the likes of whom probably don't have much time to make noise on policy talk pages). Jɪmp 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Support: What you say is true. I recently opened bugzilla:12318 requesting that a default date format be set for the English Misplaced Pages, which would render both variations moot, but until and unless it is acted on, the change is right. RossPatterson (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

YEAR in TOPIC

Unresolved – Proposal still open (re-re-proposed replacement language)

This is merger of several related discussions and proposals. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification about when to link to dates? (according to MOS)

I'm looking for some clarification about when dates should be linked. In the Autoformatting and linking section of the MOS, the last bullet reads:

"Misplaced Pages has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. Piped links to pages that are more focused on a topic are possible (]), but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function."

Does the sentence in boldface (my emphasis) mean:
1. That dates (using any combiations of days, months, and year) should only be linked if the linked date will add to the reader's understanding.
2. That only full dates (i.e. November 1, 2007) should be linked, but not dates like November 2007.

Another Wiki user has been trying to tell me that the latter is the case, while I have been trying to indicate that the first meaning is correct. (The discussion can be viewed here: User_talk:NatureBoyMD.) Which is correct? -NatureBoyMD 21:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The second is close to correct. Full dates, like November 1 2007, as well as just months and days, like October 14, should always be linked. This allows a user's date display preferences to work. TomTheHand 21:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
"Should always be linked"? No, the wording is "are normally linked", after a lot of tension several months ago about the dysfunctional state of the dateformatting script. See archives here for a discussion of the ?five key disadvantages in using it. As I've loudly trumpeted here and elsewhere, I now actively discourage the use of the autoformatting function, and will continue to do so until it's fixed.
Number 2 above, second point is a different issue: autoformatting applies only to full dates, not years alone and years and months. Please avoid linking those items unless there's a COMPELLING reason to do so. Tony (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Tony. Misplaced Pages is awash in pointlessly linked dates. Linking a date for no particular reason is no better than linking to Wiktionary for definitions of every single word in an article. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Do not use surprise links

The albums project contains the following:

  • Quote: Do not use piped links to "years in music" e.g. ], instead add (see 1991 in music) where you feel it is appropriate.

I propose that we make that generic and include it. Lightmouse 11:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea, since most readers will assume that piped year-links are of the trivial type (which shouldn't be linked at all) and won't bother to follow them. Tony (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Any suggestions for generic wording? Lightmouse (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
We could expand further; surprise links masked as single words are as bad as ones masked as years. But this should be a recommendation; ] can make perfect sense in a table, for example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It depends on the word that represents the pipe. The problem with years is that because they have been commonly linked but unpiped, readers tend to ignore the piped ones because they can't be bothered to check each blue-spattered year on the off-chance that it's piped to somewhere useful. The same does not generally apply to other words that are piped, although I concede that in some cases the principle is similar ("restaurant" --> "Chinese cuisine" in a recent FA, I seem to remember). Tony (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
If you would like to modify the scope that is fine by me, as long as this date problem is dealt with succinctly and strongly enough to have a real effect on editors. My proposal is to replace the following wording:
  • Piped links to pages that are more focused on a topic are possible (]), but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function.
with
  • Do not pipe a link from "year" to "year <something>" or "<something> year" e.g. ]. Use "(see ])" if appropriate. Note that piped links break the date-linking function if used in full dates.
Lightmouse (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to strenuously disagree. While I'm aware that somewhere in one of these guidelines there is an old recommendation to never use so-called "surprise links", this advice, which I surmise dates to around 2003 or so, has been completely abandoned in actual practice by the community. E.g. there is no longer any consensus at all that there is anything wrong with "composed of silica and aloxite". Piped links exist for a reason. I don't see any rationale at all for enshrining a weird date-specific exception, and (Tony are you listening? ;-) I think it would be detrimental to our goals of ending the wikilinking of random bare-year dates, by removing any reader expectation that linked years every go anywhere vaguely useful. Rather, I think that we need to do the exact opposite and recommend not only that bare year dates never be linked as 1996, but also that the only time that such years should be linked is when the do go to a topically-relevant and -specific year article (1996 in baseball, or whatever). For WikiProject Sports I've been been formulating a guideline on when and when not to use such links (e.g.: "won third place in the 1996 World Championship" vs. "won the 1996 World Championshiop"). Agree that mentioning that piped links break the date-linking function if used in full dates is good to mention. Really, I think that proponents of this move simply do not frequently edit articles in which these sorts of links are useful (especially sports and entertainment stats tables come to mind, despite the music project's own advice). If I get shouted down on this, I might be able to compromise on their being permitted in tables, since I don't think they particularly are (or aren't) useful in general article prose, but do find them particularly useful in tables. Cf. WP:MOSFLAG - pretty much the same dividing line (except that the majority of editors, myself included, find flagicon use in main prose genuinely detrimental while sometimes useful in tables.) — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 15:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
PS: Don't mistake me for an overlinker of dates; see my comments at the end of #Clarification about when to link to dates? (according to MOS), above. I don't advocate that "Year in X" date linking be done very much, only when it is truly germane. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 16:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm all ears; I hear you! Tony (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I am also listening. My proposed wording was just a suggestion, I would be interested to see other suggestions. Lightmouse (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, I think your (compromise) proposal that they be permitted in tables is a good one. I disagree that the existence of piped links justifies these types of links in body copy, as I consider that too much of a "surprise". What if we changed the wording to discourage their use in copy (as above) but encourage their use in infobox and other tables where it makes sense? -- Renesis (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, how about:
  • Do not pipe a link from "year" to "year <something>" or "<something> year" e.g. ] in copy text. Use "(see ])" if appropriate. In tables, piped links are permitted if they make the table compact. Piped links must never be used in full dates because they break the date formatting function.
Lightmouse (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What about links in football articles such as 1987–88? Woodym555 (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Alt. version:
  • Avoid piping links from "year" to "year <something>" or "<something> year" (e.g., ]) in the main prose of an article. Use "(see ])", if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all. In places where compact presetation is important (some tables, infoboxes and lists), piped links may be useful. Piped links must never be used in full dates (e.g. ], ]) because they break the date-formatting function. Piped topical year links should only be made when the event in question is genuinely notable in the context of the year article to which would link.
— SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 11:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that would indeed be an undesirable result. The point seems to be that such links shouldn't be used at all the main article prose. I'm honestly not sure I can agree with that, so it looks like we are right back to the drawing board. Some are opposed to "surprise links", period, others like me and I think you see them as very useful ways of avoiding redundant clutter wording in ever other sentence. Others think they should only be used in tables/lists of tabular data. I accidentally supported that viewpoint, but don't actually share it. I do think that "surprise" links should be used in such cases, but not that those should be the only cases. Anyway, it strikes me that we don't have consensus on this one way or the other yet. The proposal, and the language in MOSNUM presently both do not adequately deal with the situations that arise. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 20:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You read my feelings perfectly. I am currently of the opinion that they do no harm. I don't think that consensus will be very forthcoming, given that peoples views vary differently. Trying to accomadate everyone's views leads to watered down text that actually helps no-one.

Re-proposal

New version to address issue raised by Woody:

*Avoid piping links from "year" to "year something" or "something year" (e.g., ]) in the main prose of an article. Use an explicit cross-reference, e.g. ''(see ])'', if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all. In places where compact presentation is important (some tables, infoboxes and lists), piped links may be useful. Another exception is the main prose of articles in which such links are used heavily, as if often the case with sportsperson biographies that link to numerous separate season articles, in which the ''(see ...)'' phrasing would rapidly become repetitive and cluttering; in such a case it is best to make it clear that the link is to such a topical date article, e.g. in ], rather than in ]. Piped links must never be used in full dates (e.g. ], ]) because they break the date-formatting function. Topical date links should only be used when the event in question is genuinely notable in the context of the year (or month, etc.) article to which would link.

Revised version below.

I think this will adequately address the cases that need to be addressed so far, and would actually slightly help advance the growing consensus that a replacement for the date formatting function is needed so that dates are only linked when there is a contextual/informative reason for linking them.

PS: If we wanted to address piped links other than dates, I believe that is a way bigger matter, and should be discussed at WT:MOS, probably with an RfC, since it is bound to be highly controversial.

— SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 21:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with almost all of those points. That addresses all cases brought up so far, but this is a very insular forum for something like this. If the discussion were to be broadcast, I think you would find a wide variety of subjects where these links are useful. The date formatting function is a whole different kettle of fish. (metaphor about barge pole comes to mind). Also agree that "hidden links" is a topic that needs wider discussion. Your text seems fine for what it is, yet to me it seems complicated and too wordy. There are too many exceptions for it to be a useful editing guideline. (IMO of course). Woody (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It can be made more readable with indented bullet points. The insularity is intended, because we're only trying to address over- and inappropriate date linking without opening a larger can of "hidden links" worms. I'm sure there are other cases where such date links arise, but isn't mentioning both music and sports good enough to get it across that we're speaking in generalities? I wouldn't want to see us list 15 "different" exceptions that aren't really different in a meaningful way. :-) Here's a revised version:
  • Avoid piping links from "year" to "year something" or "something year" (e.g., ]) in the main prose of an article in most cases. Use an explicit cross-reference, e.g. ''(see ])'', if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all. Exceptions:
  • Piped links may be useful in places where compact presentation is important (some tables, infoboxes and lists).
  • Piped links may also be useful in the main prose of articles in which such links are used heavily, as is often the case with sportsperson biographies that link to numerous separate season articles.
Piped links must never be used in full dates (e.g. ], ]) because they break the date-formatting function. When using piped links, it is best to clearly indicate that the link is to such a topical date article, e.g. in ], rather than in ]
A topical date link should only be used when the event in question is genuinely notable in the context of the year (or month, etc.) article to which it would link.
How's that? — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 00:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Lightmouse (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
As good as it is going to get I think. Well done. (The insular was referring to the limited number of people who look at, and comment on this particular forum.) Woody (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. -Freekee (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think input from more editors is required before removing "surprise links" from every article. It should be discussed at the village pump. --Pixelface (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would much rather see a piped link than have a random (see....) after some sentences. Piped links are extremely common on the English wikipedia, and (see...) is not. In my opinion, navigation should either be in a See Also section or through wikilinks embedded in the text (whether they are piped or not). Karanacs (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, that is also my opinion. It is also why I have argued for the inclusion of "escape clauses" and some ambiguity in the text. The word heavy is always open to interpretation. Within the prose of an article "hidden links" are useful and help to keep the prose flowing. The links do provide context as well. Woody (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Right. That is pretty much the largest point of this exercise. I know that some guideline somewhere, probably a MoS page (I can't actually find it yet, so it may have already been deleted), argues against any and all so-called "surprise links" generally, and it is my contention that it does not in fact represent consensus at all, since the utility of such links is obvious, as is the plain fact of their use in hundreds of thousands of WP articles with no sign of them being deprecated by the general editorship. The other point, of course, is to lay out some sane guidelines on usage of such links within the scope of WP:MOSNUM, at least with regard to years. We might later need to cover other cases, but for now I think that the years case is sufficient, per WP:CREEP and WP:BEANS (i.e., do not attempt to create a guideline about something on which the editing community doesn't genuinely need guidance.) — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, completely agree. In that vein, lets add the text in, barring any further objections. Woody (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Pixelface, I honestly don't understand what you are getting at. There is no proposal to remove "surprise links" from every article. This proposal is actually quite opposite that, and sanctions the use of such links where they are genuinely useful and explains somewhat what the criteria of that usefulness might be. There is already, somewhere else that I seem unable to locate right now, a more general condemnation of piped links, which I contend is nonsense and hope to change into something more reasonable when I actually find it (and of course after another but more general discussion of this sort). — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Lightmouse proposed it on November 15. And if you look at his contributions, he's been removing "surprise links" quite actively. --Pixelface (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Parentheses

If you do this, then I think that, if a date appears within parentheses, it should automatically be replaced with "(see XXXX in music)" (or "video gaming" or whatever). SharkD (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That would in way, way too many cases auto-violate the the principle that such "YEAR in TOPIC" links should only be made when the linked-from item is genuinely significant within the context of that year. For example: SOME_RANDOM_FILM_NAME (1993), on one hand, versus SOME_VERY_SIGNIFICANT_FILM_NAME took the 1993 "Best Picture" Oscar on the other. And that probably isn't even a good example, really. It is hard to come up with a generalized case for when one should make such links; it is much easier to say that most of them should simply be deleted, as blue-link "noise". — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Any reason the remaining dispute tag can't be removed?

It's on "Autoformatting and linking". Can't see the point of the continued presence of the tag. Tony (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The overall discussion topic still seems to be open on it, and someone even cross-listed the discuss at WT:MOS. Better to let it stand until that discussion settles out, I think.

Closure

Just for the record I want to call for any last discussion/debate that anyone feels is needed. The #Re-proposal above seems to not be truly objectionable to anyone, even if it not a bright line in the sand, if I may mix a few metaphors. A possible exception is SharkD, but I think the concerns raised by that editor are addressed (and I speak only for myself on that observation). I think that the re-proposal (as re-re-proposed; follow the boldface) does represent actual consensus on the usage, and also feel that consensus may change on the matter to make the line brighter, one way or another, some time in the future. It is better to have some advice on the issue than either no advice, or, worse yet, advice so obsolete that everyone ignores it (since the latter case simply weakens MoS as a whole - the more it is treated as optional or theoretical, the more wildly inconsistent WP articles will become). — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 00:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the proposal? Can we repeat it in it curent form? Rmhermen (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It is now just below, in further-improved form. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 16:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I note that there is guidance at wp:moslink. Lightmouse (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Will go look at it. Did. It makes some reasonable points, but they are not tremendously applicable to dates. It is clear that the date-specific language in it was simply borrowed from here. I think I can make a re-re-re-proposal that will address this all, but and really tired right now so I should do it tomorrow or more like after Christimas. If I don't do it by Boxing Day, someone ping me one my talk page about it? I've already got it worked out half in my head but my eyes hurt, and the words aren't quite going right. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 15:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Nah, actually I think I've got it already:
  • Avoid piping links from "year" to "year something" or "something year" (e.g., ]) in the main prose of an article in most cases. Use an explicit cross-reference, e.g. ''(see ])'', if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all. Exceptions:
  • Piped links may be useful in places where compact presentation is important (some tables, infoboxes and lists), when they are notable enough, and not deceptive, per the below criteria: Best Rock Album ]: ].
  • Piped links may also be useful in the main prose of articles in which such links are used heavily, as is often the case with sportsperson biographies that necessarily link to numerous separate season articles containing relevant information, again per the below criteria.
  • Piped links must never be used in full dates (e.g. ], ]) because they break the date-formatting function.
  • When using piped links, especially in general prose, it is best to clearly indicate that the link is to such a topical date article, e.g. ...in ], rather than ...in ]. In particular, keep in mind that readers print out Misplaced Pages articles, so one must never use "easter-egg" links, that hide the nature of what they link to, as in ...since his ] to remain in the top-16.
  • Do not overlink, as in ] ] or worse yet the ] ] – if a very specific dated article exists, e.g. for an event, do not also link to the more general topical or regional one.
  • A topical date link should only be used when the event in question is genuinely notable in the context of the year (or month, etc.) article to which it would link. Typically, this means winning – not simply being nominated or a competitor for – a top award, trophy or other no.-1-level achievement that is itself notable on an international level, or a narrower level appropriate to the nature of the date article (e.g. nationally in the case of 2007 in Canada).
That should take care of most of it, plus some other issues I thought of in the course of re-editing it, though now I have discovered more stuff to take account of, at Misplaced Pages:Overlinking#Dates, but now really am too tired to work on it further; I did start on that integration (see Country Music Awards example now included), but it needs more integration think-through that I'm just not capable of right now. So this one isn't quite the final release candidate yet after all. <sigh>. Also, it should be obvious that both of the "rediscovered" documents may need minor changes of their own to conform to this one, though I'm more trying to make this conform to them. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 16:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
That is quite long and hard for me to understand. A guideline should only exist if it will have an effect on articles. I suspect complicated rules have less effect than simple ones. I propose the following:
In general, do not pipe links from "year" to "year something" or "something year" (e.g., ]). Use an explicit cross-reference, e.g. ''(see ])'', if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all. Cases where piped date links might be tolerated are:
  • Where width restrictions make unpiped links difficult to fit. This can sometimes occur in tables, infoboxes and lists.
  • Where multiple repetition of unpiped links would be difficult to read. This can sometimes occur in sport articles that mention multiple relevant seasons.
Piped links must never be used in full dates (e.g. ], ]) because they break the date-formatting function.
Comments? Lightmouse (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree it could be trimmed some, but that version lost too many points (which are not WP:BEANS or WP:CREEP - they are addressing current and common worst practices). It is possible that some of these points need to be addressed elsewhere, but I can't think off the top of my head of a better place to address over-linking and just plain mis-linking of dates than Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
Since this will be its own subsection length is not particularly an issue. Completeness and consistency of guidance to editors is more imporantant, because MOS pages are references works for editors, and are not articles or other light reading.
That said, I like some of the clarifying language. Will try a stab at a merged version when I get around to it. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 18:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's an attempt to merge the original, but pared down somewhat, and Lightmouse's new wording (modified in some cases where it lost important distinctions):

===Piped date links===
Avoid piping links from "year" to "year something" or "something year" (e.g., ]), in most cases. Use an explicit cross-reference, e.g. ''(see ])'', if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all.
  • Exceptions:
  • Piped links can be appropriate where width restrictions make unpiped links difficult to fit. This can sometimes occur in tables, infoboxes and lists. Example: Best Rock Album ]: ].
  • Piping may also be useful in the main prose of articles in which repetition of unpiped links would be difficult to read, as is often the case with sportsperson bios that link to numerous separate season articles.
  • Piped links must never be used in full dates (e.g. ], ]) because they break the date-formatting function.
  • When using piped links, especially in general prose, it is best to clearly indicate that the link is to such a topical date article, e.g. ...in ], rather than ...in ]. Some readers print out Misplaced Pages articles, so we do not use "easter-egg" links, that hide the nature of what they link to, as in ...since his ] to remain in the top 16.
  • Do not overlink; if a highly specific dated article exists, e.g. for an event, do not also link to the more general topical or regional one, as in the ] ].
  • A topical date link should only be used when the event in question is genuinely notable on an international level (or a narrower level appropriate to the nature of the date article, e.g. nationally in the case of 2007 in Canada), in the context of the year (or month, etc.) article to which it would link.

How's that?

Just to be clear, the point of all of this is to address all of the following:

  • Don't use piped links, generally
  • But you can use them where space is an issue, as in tables
  • And you can use them in prose when to not do so would annoy the hell out of the reader
  • This is really common in sports bios (and "sportsperson" was used instead of "sports" or "sport" to avoid the US/UK English conflict)
  • Don't break the date-formatting function
  • Don't obfuscate or mislead
  • MOSLINK has more info on this
  • People print this stuff, so it has to make sense w/o the link being available
  • Especially, don't "easter-egg"
  • Don't overlink
  • We have a guideline about that
  • Especially don't link the year to one thing and the descriptor to another (a common malpractice)
  • Don't link everything, only truly notable things (to address a very common malpractice)
  • Explain what "notable" means in this context
  • Provide examples so that editors know precisely what this section means and doesn't mean.

If it can't address all of these points, then it is leaving something out, and shouldn't, in my opinion. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 18:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Support I think the latest proposal covers all teh bases, and will be valuable. I remember when I first used (not edited) Misplaced Pages, how confusing those piped links were, and I'm the sort of user who regularly does look at the status bar to check link targets -- most don't. A bit of cleanup: remove the comma after the easter-egg links link, and I don't see why we need to split the infinitive in "to clearly indicate" (why not "to indicate clearly"?), but either way, I think this will be an improvement. atakdoug (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of metric units in UK-related articles

MJCdetroit made this change back on 1 September, to introduce what in my view is a reasonable and realistic compromise:

"For UK-related articles, the main units are metric except for fields in which imperial are still officially used, such as street traffic."

Before that, the UK was covered in a blanket guidelines about all countries other than the US:

"For other country-related articles, the main units are metric; for example, 16 kilometres (10 mi)."

That had resulted from Crissov's removal of the fudgy-smudgy do-what-you-want non-guideline for UK-related articles (see second line):

"For UK-related, the main units are either metric or imperial (consistently within an article)."

Now, because of a fracas on an FAC page, where the nominators are insisting on old-speak as the main units (inconsistently, actually), it has come to my attention that MOS central still has the fudgy-smudgy version.

What are we going to do about this inconsistency? Tony (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As set out on Metrication in the United Kingdom proposals to outlaw imperial units have now been withdrawn
"In August 2005, the European Commission announced it would require Britain to set a legal deadline for the completion of metrication. However, on 9 May 2007, Industry Commissioner Günter Verheugen announced that the European Commission had dropped its plans to enforce the abolition of Imperial measures from 2010. This means that 'supplementary' imperial indications will be able to continue indefinitely after that date. Furthermore, in a letter to the British MEP Ashley Mote dated 5 June 2007, Commissioner Verheugen announced that in relation to the mile and the pint, "the Commission has no intention to endanger the historical and cultural traditions of Member States.""
References
  1. Britain gave an inch. Now the EU wants 1.609km
  2. Brussels is Caving in on Enforced Metrication of UK – at Last!
  3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6988521.stm
Therefore I feel that the imperial units in common usage are stil appropriate for UK based articles - as long as there is internal consistency.— Rod 09:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The whole issue is also muddied by inconsistencies in use among the general public in the UK, and while we still use miles and pints those inconsistencies are unlikely to go away. Younger generations, for example, would use metres or centimetres to describe their height, but miles for geographic distance – and it is geographic distance, not just street traffic. X is y miles from Z, whether by road, as the crow flies, or as a jumbo jet flies. Same with a pint of beer (and that's an Imperial pint, not the US pint, even more confusing) but litres and half litres of other liquids. Even an individual, of the appropriate age, often mixes and matches at the moment (stones & lbs for personal weight, kg & g for groceries, for example). Carre (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, my edit was, "For UK-related, the main units are either metric or imperial (consistently within an article)." I thought that this, the original way it was written, is the best way to handle this. The British government (and the Canadian and some Caribbean governments for that matter) officially favor metric units. However, this may not be the preference among the population. We (the MOSNUM) should not try to force something that maybe considered inconsistent with how people actually would describe something in that location. As I said in my edit summary, "We should let the UK (and Commonwealth) editors decide this one", on the individual article level. I say to change it back to the September 1st version. —MJCdetroit (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Generally Carre is on the money when describing usage. My view is that the article should use the appropriate units of measurements as used consistently in the relevant professional field in the UK in which the units are being discussed - e.g. what units do UK geographers use for distance? or how would a UK gazetteer describe geographic distances? In the present article (Wormshill) which sparked this debate the use of miles was disputed as a unit of measurement for geographic distance which then sat as an obvious inconsistency with the use of metres to describe geographic altitude and then feet as a unit to measure the depth of a denehole. My view is that inconsistency should be tolerated in UK articles - however clumsy or awkward that may be to non-UK readers - since official usage in the UK contains its own inconsistencies. Requiring usage to be linked to the common unit of measurement used in the relevant professional field is the best way to approach it in my opinion. Dick G (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand the problem here now. I share Dick G's standpoint; the UK does use different measurements for different things. Sport is a great example of this - yards for football, furlongs for horseracing, metres for athletics, miles for marathons and the various forms of car racing. Certainly we don't measure mountains in miles or kilometres though, and distance across land is ususally in miles (per road signs). But if the system is consistent, and a conversion is provided, I don't see any real point of contention. It does strike as worrying that a convention that applies to the UK, hasn't involved British editors at any stage (Misplaced Pages's second largest contributor); I think a lack of communication has caused this issue. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
In the matter of dual vs. metric-only labelling the European Commission did cave in regarding the US market, the influences to the UK were mere side effects.
What anyone feels should not matter at all. Christoph Päper (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) My initial thought was that of course MJCdetroit's edit ought to be restored, and I still think it's better than any of this nonsense about "old-speak". But Dick G's point is well-made; in the UK different fields use different units of measurement, and it also made me wonder how articles about racehorses handle purchase prices or prize monies in guineas. So perhaps the issue is deeper than just about metric vs imperial. But the bottom line is that in the UK - old-speak or not - although we buy our beer by the pint and we measure our distances by the mile, it would be absurd in an article about a British 400-metre runner to have to convert that to a 437-yard runner. (Are US 400-metre runners described as 437-yard runners in their articles?) Is there any scope in the MOS for common sense when dealing with units of measurement? I'm in favour of their consistent use wherever possible, but consistent within the article, with common usage in the UK, and in the particular field being discussed. So I guess that comes down to how "consistent" is defined in MJCdetroit's edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuarum (talk • contribs) 04:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a little bit of common sense built in to the MOSNUM. The 400-metre runner example would fall under the "where inserting a conversion would make a common expression awkward (the four-minute mile)" provision of the same section in the MOSNUM. So it would not be converted. This would be in much the same way that "35 mm film" would not get converted either. —MJCdetroit (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It is difficult at times to disentangle the real issues from the somewhat unprofessional language used in reviews in the article in question and in this discussion here (reference to "old speak", etc, when, as argued by Carre, it isn't old speak in the UK at all!) I agree with his assessment of the use of units in everyday life in the UK. I also think the suggestion by Dick G of how to resolve the issue is probably the best way forward. Like Jza84, I am surprised that a change was made which did not involve any of the editors from the UK: at the time there were many places where appropriate notification of changes could have been announced to initiate discussions, and there are probably more in existence now.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I am in favour of MJCdetroit's amendment and that generally speaking metric units should be used as the default position. It is inevitable in a period of transition that there will be some confusion and inconsistency. Clearly there are exceptions and "he drank 0.56 litres (1 pint) of beer" is absurd, but in my view they should be just that - exceptions, and clearly listed as such.
If that were to to fail , the 'fudgy-smudgy' would be my next choice. It would be ridiculous to have Orkney in metric and Shetland in imperial of course, based purely on the whim of an editor or two, but at least individual articles would make sense. The idea that an article could routinely swop between the two systems based on some more-or-less arbitrary assumption about what was 'common usage' strikes me as being unworkable and indeed eccentric. If older editors and readers don't know what a kilometre or kg is then the helpful little bracket after the metric measure will help them. Yours from a 1,309 metre high mountain some 400 kilometres north of London. Ben MacDui/Walk 12:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Misplaced Pages should reflect modern formal usage. I still use miles in everyday conversation, but I know that the kilometre is the unit used to measure distances in formal situations. The MOS should specify metric as the default, and then list the situations where convention allows imperial measurements to be used in formal situations (measures in pubs etc.). Although people may use units such as stones and pounds in everyday conversation, kg etc. are used in newspaper articles, medical journals etc. Misplaced Pages should reflect formal useage, not what happens in informal conversation. Lurker (said · done) 13:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
But then you are going against what has always been accepted practice here - that we follow common usage in the country of origin. If we have a article on a british place and it says "X is 73km from Y", most british editors would have to do a conversation to try and work out what it means - nobody discusses distance or indeed speed in terms of kms. I'd also dispute that kgs are used in newspaper articles, if british newspaper article is going to say, for example, about a rugby player "he's a 120kgs of muscle", they will say "he's 16 stone of muscle". What are you are suggesting is a dicate that would actually lead to edit wars as UK editors see "foreign" metrics being used and spend their time converting them to something that makes sense to the majority of brits. I'm under 30 BTW rather than an old person. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh as for "what newspapers use" - the times style guide states that (withan an overall context of shifting to metric) - he following will remain (for the time being) the principal exceptions to the foregoing:

1. Distances globally Give miles first, and convert (at first mention) to kilometres in brackets for all countries apart from the UK and the US. Speeds: use only miles per hour (mph) in the UK and US; for all other countries use mph but also convert to kilometres per hour (km/h) in brackets at first mention. 2. Personal measurements in height and weight. Continue to say she was 5ft 7in (1.7m) and weighed 9st 10lb (62kg).

3. Altitude and depth: The main exception to metric should be aircraft altitude, where a pilot will announce that "we are now flying at 33,000ft"; metric conversion to 10,058m may be used in brackets here. But now specify mountain heights in metric first, eg, Ben Nevis is the highest peak in Britain at 1,343m (4,406ft).

4. Volume: The main exceptions to metric should be pints of beer and cider, while milk (confusingly) is still sold in pint bottles as well as litre containers. With petrol and fuel now sold in litres rather than gallons, use metric, eg, 75p a litre (no longer any need to convert), but because car manufacturers still do so, give fuel consumption in miles per gallon. '' --Fredrick day (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to confuse matters the Guardian Style Guide says:

"The Guardian uses the metric system for weights and measures; exceptions are the mile and the pint. As understanding of the two systems is a matter of generations, conversions (in brackets) to imperial units should be provided wherever this seems useful. Imperial units in quoted matter should be retained, and converted to metric if it doesn't ruin the flow of the quote. It is not necessary to convert moderate distances between metres and yards, which are close enough for rough and ready purposes (though it is preferable to use metres), or small domestic quantities: two litres of wine, a kilogram of sugar, a couple of pounds of apples, a few inches of string. Small units should be converted when precision is required: 44mm (1.7in) of rain fell in two hours. Tons and tonnes (metric) are also close enough for most purposes to do without conversion; again use tonnes (except in shipping tonnage). Body weights and heights should always be converted in brackets: metres to feet and inches, kilograms to stones/pounds. Geographical heights and depths, of people, buildings, monuments etc, should be converted, metres to feet. In square measurement, land is given in sq metres, hectares and sq km; with sq yards, acres or sq miles in brackets where there is space to provide a conversion. The floor areas of buildings are conventionally expressed in sq metres (or sq ft). Take great care in conversions of square and cubic measures: 2 metres is about 6.5 feet, but 2 sq metres is about 10.5 feet"— Rod 17:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A guide equating 2 sq metres to 10.5 feet—getting both the number and the unit wrong—is hardly worth mentioning as a source. −Woodstone (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll second that. Recommending a conversion of 33,000 ft to 10,058 m is just about as bad. No, even worse with respect to Misplaced Pages usage; the square metres error is likely to be corrected, whereas false precision errors often hang around far too long. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, so being a lawyer I couldn't resist trying to come up with a definition that covered this off. How about:

    For articles in which the subject matter is sited in the United Kingdom the appropriate unit of measurement is either: (a) the unit of measurement as consistently applied by officials or professionals in the United Kingdom; or (b) such unit of measurement as the principal newspapers or broadcasters of the United Kingdom would use, in each case in respect of the subject to which such unit relates.

Feel free to tone down the legalese :) Dick G (talk)

If the Times would convert an airplane altitude of 33000 feet to 10058 metres (not 10000), they thereby show their lack of competence in the field. The guideline to convert from miles to kilometres for the metric world is just the wrong way around. This guide therefore seems avoidable. The Guardian seems more sensible, though faulty still.
The beer pint is irrelevant for pretty much all articles in Misplaced Pages, UK-related or not. The same applies for the gold ounce, which is only used in pricing, not in measuring.
The English statute mile is the same as the US land mile for all practical purposes. I do not like it, but it is probably the most sensible approach to allow it (besides kilometres) for distances in the UK (and USA) for now. With speed limits defining source units are used of course, with conversion to km/h (not m/s) where necessary. For other speeds I tend to want to disallow miles per hour in UK-related articles – I know it is hopeless to want the same for US-related articles. If it is seen as necessary it should be the secondary unit.
Overall Misplaced Pages is written to last, unlike newspapers. It uses a formal style, unlike some of the mass media. It should also be readable by anyone, not just certain native speakers; the common denominator is metric, US customary units being provided as a mere service and imperial units – i.e. where they differ from the former – being virtually unused even today, especially legally. (There is the stone, but I believe it is not too much to ask Brits to understand either kilograms or plain pounds in an international project.)
JFTR, I really dislike the idea of specific style rules for articles related to Foo or because they were started / mainly written by John Doe. Christoph Päper (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
To be fair Misplaced Pages is a dynamic project. It can still be "written to last" when articles can be adjusted and evolve according to prevailing convention. In general the project would not seek to impose metric on US articles and in the same way it should not be used to impose metric on UK articles. Anything less underestimates the strength of feeling and the common understanding of those units in the UK. Policies do not need to be "one size fits all" to achieve credibility.Dick G (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that pretty much all Brits do understand both kgs and lbs. But the fact remains that many common measurements like distance are still reported and recorded in imperial units like miles, furlongs and acres. The European Union has agreed that those units are acceptable, so I really can't see why wikipedia makes such a fuss about them.
The issue isn't about ownership by John Doe or anyone else. It's about being consistent with the terms used in the country or subject being written about. In point of fact, I think that it's the US articles that stick out like a sore thumb, where neither the metric or imperial measurement systems are used consistently. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, a bot has cleaned up many of the U.S. articles in this regard to make them more consistent. As for the UK related articles, I've changed the MOSNUM back to the original bullet (which is still in the MOS) giving editors the freedom to choose between the systems; which the UK editors were doing anyway. —MJCdetroit (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This concerns me for two reasons. First of all, whilst it may bring peace in the short term, it will probably stoke up ongoing difficulties over the years to come. Let us imagine two villages somewhere in the UK.

Gramsford is 10 kilometres (6 miles) from Poundbury. The market cross is 200 metres (656 feet) above sea level, and the average summer temperature is 17 degrees C (63 degrees F). The village's tallest man is 2 metres (6 feet 8 inches) tall - he also recently won the 100 metres (110 yards) sprint at the annual gala and scored a goal from 20 metres (22 yards) against local soccer rivals Poundbury.

But

Poundbury is 6 miles (10 kilometres) from Poundbury. The market cross is 300 feet (91 metres) above sea level, and the average summer temperature is 66 degrees F (19 degrees C). The village's shortest man is 5 foot 1 inch (1.55metres) tall - he also recently won the 110 yards (100 metres) sprint at the annual gala and scored a goal from 22 yards (20 metres) against local soccer rivals Gramsford.

If they are stubs and I am interested in expanding one of them, I can probably get away with changing the details to my preferred system. What however if I find a GA and wish to take it to FA and do likewise? As time goes on and Misplaced Pages grows such conflicts become more and more likely.

Secondly, I am not sure that this 'fudge' allows for common sense exceptions. Do the citizens of Gramsford have to celebrate their sporting victories with 568 cl (1 pint) of beer? Is the reference to 110 yards in the Poundbury example correct? - the name of the race is "the 100 metres". Unless such exceptions are clearly listed I suspect this may run and run. Ben MacDui/Walk 12:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, too many of us spend too much of our time cleaning up articles looking just like that.
Gramsford is 10 kilometres (6 milesmi) from Poundbury. The base of the market cross is 200 metres (656660 feetft) above sea level, and the average summer temperature is 17 degrees CCelsius (63 degrees F°F). The village's tallest man is 2 metres (6 feetft 8 inchesin) tall - &mdashhe also recently won the 100 metresmetre (110109 yardsyd) sprint at the annual gala and scored a goal from 20 metres (22 yardsyd) against local soccer rivals Poundbury.
But
Poundbury is 6 miles (10 kilometreskm) from Poundbury. The base of the market cross is 300 feet (9190 metresm) above sea level, and the average summer temperature is 66 degrees FFahrenheit (19 degrees C°C). The village's shortest man is 5 footfeet 1 inch (1.55metresm) tall - —he also recently won the 110 yardsyard (100101 metresm) sprint at the annual gala and scored a goal from 22 yards (20 metresm) against local soccer rivals Gramsford.
It doesn't really matter a whole lot if we have two different articles, where:
Gramsford is 10 kilometres (6 mi) from Poundbury. The base of the market cross is 200 metres (660 ft) above sea level, and the average summer temperature is 17 degrees Celsius (63 °F). The village's tallest man is 2 metres (6 ft 8 in) tall—he also recently won the 100 metre (109 yd) sprint at the annual gala and scored a goal from 20 metres (22 yd) against local soccer rivals Poundbury.
But
Poundbury is 6 miles (10 km) from Poundbury. The base of the market cross is 300 feet (90 m) above sea level, and the average summer temperature is 66 degrees Fahrenheit (19 °C). The village's shortest man is 5 feet 1 inch (1.55 m) tall—he also recently won the 110 yard (101 m) sprint at the annual gala and scored a goal from 22 yards (20 m) against local soccer rivals Gramsford.
Lots of problems, but the differences in two different articles pale to insignificance when compared to the rest of them. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


  • My parting comment is that people who doggedly persist with old-speak fill me with revulsion. It's the most bloody-minded conservatism. No time for it. So I think it should be changed back to metrics for UK-related articles, and that's that. Tony (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Some options

  • Perhaps it would be helpful to ensure that the current position has genuine support. There seem to me to be four options:
1) Metric first with a few very specific and listed exceptions including 'pint of beer' and race horse prize money.
Main advantage - consistency.
Disadvantage. Annoys people who think miles should come before kilometres and other pro-imperialists.
2) Metric first with a few very specific and listed exceptions such as 'pint of beer' and miles for land distances.
Advantage - fairly consistent and suits those who like miles.
Disadvantage. Annoys those who prefer imperial units.
3) The existing Fudge - editors must be consistent but can use either system (presume continuing use of a few very specific exceptions).
Advantage - internally consistent and editors can suit themselves.
Disadvantage. Inconsistent between articles. Possible edit wars.
4) Use commonly used phrases and 'professional standards' regardless of metric/imperial.
Advantage. Easy to understand for most British readers and corresponds closely to the way some (but not all) people think and speak
Disadvantages. Very internally inconsistent. Difficult (or at least annoying) to read for non-Brits. May need an ongoing set of adjudicators to determine which units to use in which contexts and a set of protocols that even British editors will find hard to remember. (Example below).
Gramsford is 6 miles (10 kilometres) from Poundbury. The market cross is 656 feet (200 metres) above sea level, and the average summer temperature is 17 degrees C (63 degrees F). In winter the temperature sometimes reaches minus 5 degrees C (23 degrees F). The village's tallest man is 6 feet 6 inches (2 metres) tall - he also recently won the 100 metres (110 yards) sprint at the annual gala. The highest hill in the area is 423 metres (1,388 feet) above sea level and there is regular race to the summit for all local horses over fifteen hands (1.52 metres) high. 10 stone (63.5 kg) jockey Bill Smith puts his success down to regular gym workouts where he aims to bench press 50kg (110 lbs).

Declaring an interest, I mostly work with articles such as Scottish islands where land distances are not much of an issue. I am in favour of (1), but would reluctantly accede to (2). (3) is ridiculous, but at least it is better than the mess that I fear (4) is likely to result in.

I make that two (Tony and I) in favour of (1). Any other takers? Ben MacDui/Walk 15:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Versions (1), (2), and MJCDetroit's version are identical in principle. I would accept any of them. People should note that there are adequate caveats elsewhere in the guidance (e.g. for non-metric source data). Lightmouse (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
No, there aren't "adequate caveats". This whole notion is nonsense. There is no monolithic usage that justifies that "hobgoblin of little minds" (i.e.,a foolish consistency, per Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes), trying to specify "metric-first" or "English-first" on an article-wide basis, let alone some vaguely defined classes of articles. The usage often varies in different fields of activity within an article. The usage often varies over time (official temperature records in degrees Fahrenheit through some date, and degrees Celsius thereafter, for example). The usage often varies with geographic location within an article. We don't need this additional bone of contention to conflict with and complicate those other "adequate caveats" to which Lightmouse refers. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Please pardon my inability to understand exactly what you mean. Are you proposing that Option 4 is appropriate (I don't think so) or that "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" or …? Ben MacDui/Walk 10:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Of the options, option 4 is clearly the best, and clearly mischaracterized and phrased in a way as to discourage support. There is nothing to be gained by some strange supposed consistency between a distance between towns in miles and a tractive force in pounds force, or between a foot energy in calories and protein in grams per hundred grams and the size of a package, or between an area in acres and an international sale of 100,000 metric tons of wheat.
The biggest problem is that some vague notion of "UK-related" articles is the silliest basis on which to put a determination of which of several possible units of measures should be listed first. There are usually better reasons for the choice for each of the individual measurements. And there are going to be a great many articles in which not all of the primary measurements are best expressed in some limited subsystem of units. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that so far there is no support for either options 3 or 4 above in this section of the discussion. If there are no further comments I will amend the page back to some variant on "For UK-related articles, the main units are metric except for fields in which imperial are still officially used, such as street traffic." Ben MacDui/Walk 14:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad move. First, what is "UK-related"? Why should this apply to an automobile built in 1947, to an aeroplane built in the UK in 1933, or a railway line in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland that was disestablished in 1875? To the record high temperature at a place, which was recorded in 1913? What is "officially used"? and why does "street traffic" fit into that category? What measurements do you have in mind with respect to that "street traffic", for example? How broad is the notion of a "street" in UK-speak? Is it the same in other flavors of English? Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I think Ben is basically on the right lines but the "UK-related" and "street traffic" phrasing is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for confusion. Naturally I'd prefer something a little tighter, perhaps a variant of my previous formulation? Thus: For articles in which the subject matter is principally sited in the United Kingdom the appropriate unit of measurement is metric save in the case of those instances where non-metric units of measurement are consistently applied by officials in the relevant field in the United Kingdom to which the subject matter relates.
    • As a final thought, have some pity for us Brits who have to persevere with "old-speak" because our government retains imperial measurements. We have to use miles because that's what our roadsigns and speedometers say. Furthermore every generation since the 1970s has been educated widely in both metric and imperial across all fields of measurement (perhaps more so than any other country?) and are, one would hope, capable of appreciating instantly both sets of units. We are not all stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the march of time but we do have to acknowledge those units we are presented with by our law-makers. Dick G (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Gene Nygaard makes some valid points. Misplaced Pages, perhaps unfairly and unkindly, is thought to be written by twenty-years olds who are re-writing history; I know that it is not true, but it is worth considering whether it is 30 year-olds trying to re-write history. The UK went (partially) metric it the 1960s / 1970s; and we have a long history of engineering that predates this. Consider something simple like screw threads: I wish to talk about 1/8" BSW, 1/8"BSF, 0 BA, 3/8" BSW, 1&1/8" BSW threads, etc. Do those who wish to enforce rule (1) and (2), for example, require us to write about 0.125 cm BSW & BSF threads and 0.25 cm BSW & BSF threads - they don't exist; presumably you wish to deny that they ever existed, on the basis that metric threads are preferred. Similarly on armaments, World War I & II guns were designed in measurements of inches and pounds: we had 2" & 3" rockets (which are approximately (50 mm) and (75 mm) respectively, but they were not 50 mm & 75 mm rockets; and we had 25 lb guns; now we may have 120 mm and 155 mm guns. Canals and railways in the UK were built with Imperial gauge, not metric gauge. I would suggest that where something has been designed and/or built to metric units, then metric units should be preferred; and conversely were something has been designed and/or built to Imperial units, then Imperial units should be used. I'm all in favour of adding other units in brackets afterwards: I just don't accept that the cult of youth should be able to rewrite history, or pretend that anything before their time does not exist. So, I'm in favour of (1), (2), (3) and (4), when appropriate.Pyrotec (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I sympathise with many of the points raised above. For example, I have a GA that concerns itself largely with 19th century engineering and is imperial and another GA that is primarily about the circumstances of a present-day island that is metric. GAC reviewers seem quite happy. What I am attempting to avoid is editors getting a ritual bollocking at FAC for not conforming to MOS. You can't be in favour of more than one system 'when appropriate' unless there are very detailed policies that outline what is and is not 'appropriate'. Lets not forget that we are all taking about the same information here, it's just the order it's presented in, and that conforming to the colloquial (UK) use of everyday language is just going to look daft (per example 4) to non UK readers. More later, must dash. Ben MacDui/Walk 15:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
If GA-reviewers and FA-reviewers need to justify any pushiness along these lines based on sound reasoning applicable to a particular article, that is a good thing, not something to be whining about. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that context is important. I have no problems with a article that talks about, say, a part that is 1.4 m x 45 mm x 45 mm (as I might buy timber that size from B&Q), and I can live without the feet and inches in brackets afterwards; but if I see an article about George Stephenson and railways, then I expect to read about Template:4ft8.5in} gauge; I don't expect to see 1.4 m, 1.43 m, or 1.435 m gauge depending on now much expertise the box ticker who converts 4ft 8.5in has, I also expect to read articles about 7ft wide Narrow boats. My argument is technical: railway gauge is measured as 4ft8.5in and narrow boats as 7ft, these are principal units; the derived equivalents are (1.435m , or 1,435mm) and (2,121mm) so they go in brackets afterwards. 1.435m (4ft 8.5in) and 2,121mm (7ft) are not strictly interchangeable with 4ft 8.5in (1,435mm) and 7ft (2,121mm); as the figure in the brackets will change depending on the level of precision that is given to the conversion. That point, I see, has also been made above. That rule can be drafted quite precisely - the principal unit (metric, Imperial, mm, m, whatever) is used first and the derived units follow afterwards in brackets, with the necessary level of precision. Even the proverbial "box ticker" should be able to grasp that. Pyrotec (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, 'source units' includes legacy units for articles about old trains and old canal boats. To digress into train spotting for a moment: Source data for Victorian trains was non-metric, so a metric conversion '(1435 mm)' should be second. Source data for trains being specified now is almost certainly hard metric '1435 mm', so I would expect that to be first. Perhaps you wisely chose the George Stephenson example to avoid the esoteric issue of rail metrication. Lightmouse (talk)
In 1965, the UK agreed to go (partially) metric within ten years (i.e. by 1975), so yes it is Victorian, but we are also talking World War I, World War II and in the UK more than 65% of the 20th Century; the USA followed much later.UK metric time line Pyrotec (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC) (re-edited. Pyrotec (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC) )
Yes, I agree with you. Lightmouse (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking a step back to reflect

Many, too many problems and dicussions on this and nearby pages result from the wishy-washy, arbitrary and often random rule which decides on orthography, style of dates, system of measurement etc. to use in a given article. Geographic relation and relevance is taken into account, first and major authors, voodoo sometimes and, of course, the loudest and most persistent voices in Talk.

We could avoid, to a sane degree at least, these constantly returning battles, which often get lost in minor details, if we chose one simple style guide once and for all articles. This ruleset would not have exceptions that creep in just to cater for someone’s assumed or possible feelings; only well-founded ones would stay, e.g. such helping disambiguation.

To achieve this, we would have to concentrate on the lowest common denominator among the global readership (or the preference of the majority where no common denominator exists) and on reason. The authorship came second, because the wiki principle allows the individual to diverge as long as the community has a common goal. The goal is a coherent and consistent encyclopaedia of non-pareil quality and quantity.

There is no established form of International English yet, so we would have to create one, probably based on a select one. There really are not that many issues and they are all resolvable without one current variant looking like the major contributor. So maybe we would write analyse the color of the encyclopaedia at the center or analyze the colour of the encyclopedia at the centre or somehow else.

There is an International System of Units, however. It makes sense, though, to keep definitions in different systems intact. Associated standards might not all be applicable to Misplaced Pages; perhaps an adjective like 8cm instead of eight-centimetre serves our needs best, a small non-breaking space is still problematic on the Web and we use units outside formulas, where italic letters indicate variables, as well.

In numerical dates only an incremental or decremental order makes sense. With alphabetic month for prose, the parts of inversed order should be separated by a divisor, i.e. a comma, or maybe they should not be used at all.

And so forth.

We do not have to follow the established rules for books and newspapers too closely, because those are made with certain restrictions in mind, that do not apply in most usecases of WP (being a huge hypertext), e.g. brevity in thin columns or consequences from sequential reading and looks before logic.

Think about it and have a happy New Year (and new year), Christoph Päper (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Advantages and disadvantages of "standardisation"

I have some major problems with this attempt to impose standards which may be unrealistic. To me the purpose of an encyclopedia is to record and represent the world. If we accept the definition cited at Encyclopedia then we need to use terms, units etc which have meaning for the readers.

I am not aware of any reliable profiles of the readership of wikipedia (that would be an interesting project in its own right) and therefore it is difficult to be sure what their needs/desires might be. I suspect that most readers look at UK topics if they live here or are considering visiting, or want to learn about what the UK is like, and therefore we should be representing this. I would agree with the comment above that many people in the UK can cope with both metric and imperial units, and that readers from elsewhere in the world can adapt if provided with alternatives and links to further info (eg wikilinking the first occurrence of a unit in an article).

The world related to units in the UK is not standardised it is "messy" and therefore I feel it is reasonable for wikipedia to reflect that messiness. To give a few examples: This morning I

  • Bought a container with 1.44 litres of milk
  • Received a letter from the National Blood Service asking for a pint of my blood (as long as I'm healthy & weigh more than 7st 12lbs)
  • Was asked by my 18 yr old (normally at university doing a science degree) about the fuel consumption of a 2nd hand car in miles per gallon
  • Had to find trainers for my 8 yr old who has just got Shoe size 2 (UK sizes) but her new ones are labelled in EU & US sizes.

I could go on - but that quick snippet of daily life illustrates the reality (not necessarily old-speak) and I would argue against the imposition by those who may not have as much insight into the UK of a simple metric for everything rule.

I don't have a problem with "For UK-related, the main units are either metric or imperial (consistently within an article)." and have taken several articles to GA & FA using that guidance.— Rod 09:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Rod here on this one. The UK's units are a terrible, even politicised mess. I myself however never saw any problem with the previous wording. If the units are consistent and have a suitable conversion, I didn't see any harm, or even any objection from British users. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there is plenty of agreement here. Even in the examples quoted, there are nuances. The public-facing word for blood taken is 'pint', but blood is officially measured in 'units' (a variable amount of about 400 to 500 ml) or explicitly in ml. The public facing words on road signs are non-metric, but everything else with regard to road design and construction is metric. My only concern with the guideline is with the term 'consistency'. It might be misunderstood by non-UK (or even UK) editors. For example, Pan Am Flight 103 is inconsistent in its use of km, nautical miles and miles but some of the inconsistency might be reasonable if it can be attributed to the source data. Lightmouse (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Pardon my recent absence with illness, but I am not at all sure there is 'plenty of agreement' save that we all notice that currently there is a lack of standardisation with regard to units of measurement in the UK. Some of us want metric first, some either/or consistently, some don't seem to mind a sort of vox pop usage. I'll come back with a few thoughts soon Insh Allah. Ben MacDui/Walk 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As there has been no further comment my supposition is that we have reached a stalemate rather than a genuine consensus, presumably one of the reasons the "the fudgy-smudgy do-what-you-want non-guideline" was reached in the first place. Absurd of course, but its main appeal seems to be that it offends fewest people. C'est la MOS. Ben MacDui/Walk 19:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rodw's remarks here, and I have always taken what Jza84 wrote as read. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that when I did A levels, the education system was in a process of transition so that I did Physics using SI units, Chemistry using cgs units, and Applied Mathematics using Imperial units. "In the head conversion" is not a problem with me, but I appreciate that others may not find it so easy. If I were to become more prescriptive, however, I would definitely like us all to move to total use of SI units, but the reality (which, once again, I must state is not "old speak", much as I would like it to become so) seems to act so as to restrict us, and we must try to reflect reality here.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I fear if we persist with the extant wording with its inherent ambiguity, we'll be dredging this one up again in a matter of months. "UK-related" and "officially used" are formulations that are going to continue to cause consternation. As a guideline it's wishy-washy enough that non-UK editors will struggle to interpret it; particularly in applying it as a preferred style for FACs, GACs &c. At the risk of laboring the point, can we not give this one a final, concerted shove, to see if we can get the MOS a little closer to a workable solution? My tuppence is reproduced for convenience: For articles in which the subject matter is principally sited in the United Kingdom the appropriate unit of measurement is metric save in the case of those instances where non-metric units of measurement are consistently applied by officials in the relevant field in the United Kingdom to which the subject matter relates. 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjgibb (talk • contribs)

Good example of the damage that autoformatting does

Just reviewed a FARC nomination (a FA that is on the chopping block). By going into the wiki-edit window, I discovered that many of the full dates are the wrong format for a US-related article. This has been on display for 99% of our readers for how long? I've removed the autoformatting and Amercianified the format for our readers out there, but only in one section, with a note on the FARC page.

If the autoformatting is changed, the problem will be the difficulty of knowing who has added/changed what date format in the future, which is disguised by the blue splotches that only we see.

In a week's time, I'll be presenting a proposal to change "is normally autoformatted" to "may be autoformatted" in MOSNUM. We owe it to our readers out there to manage date formattting better now. Tony (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems to identify the wrong problem, which will lead to the wrong solution. Autoformatting isn't doing the damage here, but rather this exposes a general need to review articles in unregistered mode. Date formatting isn't the only preference settings to be concerned about when considering how articles appear to the 99%. Instead, it would be better to present a proposal at WP:FAR to include steps to review articles in logged-out mode. And date formatting seems to be the least of F-4 Phantom II's issues in FARC. Dl2000 (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, and if you bring that proposal to MOSNUM I shall end up strongly opposing it again. Your edit lasted all of 22 minutes before it was reverted because day-month-year is the preferred format by the US Air Force and by WP:AIR. Please stop these continuous efforts to scrap the present autoformatting - it's starting to look like WP:POINT. -- Arwel (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I also strongly oppose Tony's ripping out of links to kill autoformatting, but I don't see where day-month-year is specified in WP:AIR (which specifically defers to this guideline), and I don't give a rat's ass what the US Air Force uses, as these articles are not owned or maintained by them (or for them). Chris the speller (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, WP:AIR follows the general MOS on dates. (Also, the USAF uses a variety of date forms, depending on particular usage.) I think that requiring editors to log out to check the "presentation" is a non-starter. What seems to me a better approach is to create a "reader" that editors can employ to check it; I believe this could be easily integrated into existing editorial tools. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it just be easier to go into your own preferences and turn it off? That's the way I have my own set up. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no idea why people are talking about turning off their preferences: all you need to do is view the edit-box to check for date-mess, where editors have insisted on blue-splashing an article with autoblotches. As for these accusations that I'm "ripping out" autoformatting—that's consistent with the hysterical, personalised reaction by a few people above, in contrast with the general support for inserting more explicit advice concerning optionalisation. I still have no intention of being swayed from advising people that they should consider autoformatting to be optional. MOSNUM already points out several instances in which it cannot be used. It's not mandatory by any stretch of the imagination. Tony (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The root problem here is that the MOS is in error by calling month-day-year the "American format", because day-month-year is widely used in the American military (not just the USAF), or in writing about the military, which when taken together is not an inconsiderable body of work. Some use a combination: David Hackett Fischer's Pulitzer Prize winner Washington's Crossing uses month-day in the text, but day-month-year in the footnotes. The American National Biography uses day-month-year. Literate Americans will be familiar with both styles; the MOS claim that month-day-year is the "American format" is misleading.
Whether or not a Misplaced Pages article about an American military topic uses day-month-year or month-day-year is certainly too trivial for me to care about, but for those who worry about such minutiae, be aware that both styles are perfectly acceptable in such articles. There are probably hundreds of articles on American military topics that use day-month-year; none of them need "fixed". —Kevin Myers 01:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. All Americans understand both formats; the only catch is that day-month-year seems kind of "formal" to us, but there is nothing wrong with an encyclopedia sounding formal! Some Americans (myself included) tend to prefer day-month-year anyway. (By way of disclaimer, I was raised in a US military family. Then again, so were millions of others.) — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 18:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't characterize it as "more formal", and doubt that many would. (BTW, I'm also one of those Americans who routinely use DD Month YYYY.) One thing to note about American military usage is that it generally avoids all-digit formats (at least other than YYYYMMDD), those hideous monstrosities such as 6/5/07 so common in general American usage.
Other examples in American usage of DD Month YYYY include Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and all but the earliest of the novels by James Michener. Nonetheless, our shorthand term "American format" is generally understood as intended, and isn't much more misleading than "ISO format". Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I notice also that the US Department of Das Fatherland Security uses 'day, month, year': Customs Form and Immigration Form. A large number of editors in the US and elsewhere tolerate both formats. We know this because a large number of editors see dates exactly as written in the raw text. I think it is remarkable but satisfying that ambiguous 'mm' formats are rare on Misplaced Pages. I can see no disadvantage to having a per article guideline for dates that matches the per-article guidelines for spelling. Lightmouse (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The only reason digits for months are rare on Misplaced Pages is that auto-formatting to make date preferences work is indeed the norm here, contrary to the arguments often put forth by Tony who doesn't like that feature. The only digits for months that are acceptable in formatting for preferences are in that 2008-01-07 format, any of the other formats with digits for months will give you an easily noticed and soon-fixed redlink. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Short dates and ambiguity

Could I suggest adding to the MOS a policy of converting all short dates to be compliant with the ISO standard. This would serve to eliminate ambiguity which use of the DD/MM/YY and/or MM/DD/YY formats may cause. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 01:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea, but how many wp readers understand the ISO date format? On the other hand, what if the ISO format dates were always linked ... Thunderbird2 (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "short dates"?
All-digit dates are nonsense, whether the full year is used or it is shortened to two digits as in your examples, and should always be removed, with the exception of the specific eight-digit YYYY-MM-DD format. That is the only format in which digits for the month should be acceptable. No "short" forms of that should be permitted.
There is a "short date" variant that is supported by date preferences linking; you can use three-letter abbreviations for the months, something that is particularly useful in some tables:
] ] displays as 27 Dec 2007
] ] displays as Dec 27 2007
], ] displays as 27 Dec, 2007
], ] displays as Dec 27, 2007
The actual display depends on your preferences setting. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that in the typical half-thought out notions so typical of this MoS, the project page says "Abbreviations such as Feb are used only where space is extremely limited, such as in tables and infoboxes." But actually, those are useful in tables even when space is not "extremely limited". They are useful in a column of numbers because both the years and the day of the month are more closely aligned in a column (even without a monospaced font) than they would be if some included the three-letter month "May" and others included the nine-letter month "September". That isn't necessarily because the space is "extremely limited". It works well even if there is only one other relatively narrow column involved. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, DD/MM/YY and MM/DD/YY are already unacceptable under the MoS; nothing needs to be changed. Furthermore, DD/MM/YYYY and MM/DD/YYYY are just as unacceptable; it has nothing to do with "short" forms or "long" forms of the year. It is the digits for the month that are unacceptable, unless in YYYY-MM-DD format.
Where those formats exist, they need to be fixed. But we should not be over-specifying that they be replaced with an all-digit format. They can just as well be replaced by an acceptable spelled-out month, or in appropriate cases the first three letters of the month. (Note that because they are ambiguous, we do not always know how they should be fixed, no matter how we try to fix them.) Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dates of birth and death

Do single years in dates of birth and death have to be linked? The examples suggest they do. Epbr123 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

See the Archive D4, section "Link only years?" (there's a link at the top of this page) from May 2007. The discussion was inconclusive. The best point was that it's more useful to link ancient years. I agree, if you link a birth year of 1066, I'm not likely to unlink it, but I'll probably delink 2006. Chris the speller (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The reason I ask is because of this edit. From the examples in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death, I can see why some users might be confused about whether single year birth/death dates should be linked. Epbr123 (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not "confused" thank you you very much. My response is here. Cheers, CP 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dates: MoS differs from what actually gets displayed

The MoS currently notes:

Incorrect October, 1976
Correct October 1976

However, if one adds, say, ] ] to an article and saves the page, it gets auto-formatted to:

December 27, 2007     <--- note the comma

Is this a known issue? If so, is it going to be changed to match the MoS, or is the MoS going to be changed to match the behavior? Right now the inconsistency is a little confusing. :) -- Hux (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mandatory in US formatting, except for the USAF (which has its own rules)? Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, go read that section again. USAF practices do not apply to Misplaced Pages, and WP:AIR defers to this guideline. Tony1's statement is correct. Chris the speller (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sports seasons that overlap years

I don't know if this topic has come up yet... ...But about sports seasons like in the Jim Boeheim article. Specifically the notable players section, since the years overlap each other, how should they be displayed?

Salisbury Steak (complaint dept. - contribs) 20:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates_and numbers)#Longer periods says "A slash may be used to indicate regular defined yearly periods that do not coincide with calendar years (the financial year 1993/94)." Jɪmp 21:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
So then for a players career the correct way would be: (from 1993/94-1996/97)...Thanks, I must have missed that when I was looking at it. Salisbury Steak (complaint dept. - contribs) 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Position of AD

Since when is it acceptable to put AD after the year? I was just pointed here because I changed the illiterate "471 AD" to the correct "AD 471" and someone changed it back, saying the Manual of Style allows it. Quite apart from the CE vs. AD issue, can we at least agree that if AD is going to be used, it should at least be used correctly? (Of course AD comes after the name of a century; "2nd century AD" is the only phrasing possible.) —Angr 19:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We could agree to put AD before the date. Or we could agree to put AD after the date, a now-common usage. I see no reason for specifying either; I'd say leave it alone unless the change is being made for purposes of consistency in an article. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
If we were writing some kind of textbook to show people what usages are acceptable, listing two choices would be fine. That is not the purpose of a style manual for a single publication; the purpose of this style manual is to choose among the acceptable usages in order to make Misplaced Pages more cohesive. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we tidy up usage of the terms 'SI' and 'metric'?

The term 'SI' is officially defined by the SI authority as "the modern form of the metric system". Thus for most purposes in the last few decades the terms 'SI' and 'metric system' are synonyms for units under the control of the SI authority. I know that there is a bit of fuzziness when it comes to legacy articles and the belief of people that some non-SI units are metric. However, the MoS uses both terms as synonyms. Certainly, I can detect no difference in intent between either use.

I was going to replace each instance of the term 'SI' with 'metric'. Or vice versa. It will not add or remove any constraint on editors, it will merely make the text more consistent. What do people think about using a single term rather than both? Lightmouse (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on your question, but if you're going to do some updating, the page should mention the International System of Units by name, instead of tossing around the "SI" acronym without being clear about who's in charge of this stuff. -/- Warren 16:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Warren that "SI" should be spelt out, at least on first use. I don't know whether "SI units" and "metric units" are used synonymously in the MOSNUM text (it would not surprise me), but it is important to distinguish between them in general. Crissov recently made a well argued call for reflection on whether SI should be adopted more widely. He did not say (and I believe did not mean) "metric". Having said all that, I trust Lightmouse to make a sensible judgement here. If you think it's an improvement, be bold and do it. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "metric" is broader in general than the "International System of Units", a limited subset of the former. There is also the set of units which are "acceptable for use with SI", to further complicate things (the liter, for example, is not and never will be an SI unit, but it is acceptable for use with SI). Let's not have any foolish consistency in the MoS, but rather determine which term is appropriate in each case. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
A peek at Category:Non-SI metric units might help some people better understand this; note especially the subcategory Category:CGS units and its contents as well. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of "Date range" for autoformatting purposes

Recently Lightmouse delinked a pair of dates in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style here where the pair of dates in question were 52 years apart, citing MoS guidance "Do not autoformat dates that are ... in date ranges". While I can see how Lightmouse gets his interpretation, this is an interpretation of the guidance which seems to me to be contrary to normal practice on Misplaced Pages since autoformatting was created in 2003, and would cause birth and death dates in many tens of thousands of biographical articles to be delinked, among other problems. The guidance note on WP:MOSDATE#Autoformatting_and_linking gives the example:

The autoformatting mechanism will not accept date ranges (December 13–17, 1951) or slashes (the night of 30/31 May), which must be input without using the function.

i.e. the range is only a few days. Further up the guidance, at WP:MOSDATE#Dates_of_birth_and_death, the item begins:

At the start of an article on a person, his or her dates of birth and death are provided. For example: "'''Charles Darwin''' (] ] – ] ]) was a British ..."

thus clearly showing that it is intended to autolink 'date ranges' in this case, which has been normal practice.

I therefore propose to clarify the present guidance in WP:MOSDATE#Autoformatting_and_linking to make plain the original intention that only date ranges within the same calendar month are excluded from autoformatting, as the reason that guidance was given in the first place was because of the well-known problem of getting the appearance right with different formats in the same month ("29 December-30") which does not apply when separate months are involved ("29 December-1 January" or "December 29-January 1").

The proposed new guidance is:

Do not autoformat dates that are:
In date ranges within the same calendar month (see below). (inter alia).

Thoughts? -- Arwel (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with saying "] ] – ] ]" - have it say what it means: "date ranges that are expressed without showing the full date for both ends of the range". —Random832 23:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, forcing our readers to digest that hedgehog just for the sake of using this blessed autoblotch system is just beyond belief. I have no objection to Arwel's wording. However, the reason the full date in MOS was delinked in the first place was because (1) it looks silly at the end of a list of non-date items, (2) it undesirably emphasises that last item over the others (newbies will ask "Why on earth?"), and (3) which format is displayed here (for the chosen few who log in and register their preference) is totally irrelevant to the point being made, which is about en dashes and ranges. Tony (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, Tony. I didn't revert that edit a second time because I agreed that the format wasn't particularly germane to the point at hand, although there would always be an element of "the wrong format" whichever one was chosen - there is always the risk that newbies would get the impression that one format was always preferred. Random832: Well, yes, you could link dates including the year as you suggest, but I think it looks unnatural - I can't think offhand of any instances on- or off-wiki where I've seen the year quoted twice in a date range within the same month. -- Arwel (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Ahem. Please do not attribute this to me. The history of the article shows that my role is merely secondary. Tony made an edit. Dhaluza reverted him and made an assertion. I merely undid the revert because that assertion was inconsistent with the MoS as it stands. Lightmouse (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and then I reverted you because I thought the dates should have been linked, and a bit later Tony reverted me... I'll make the change in a few days if there are no objections. -- Arwel (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"Make the change"? Can you clarify, Arwel? Just one comment: if newbies might be in danger of misconstruing the US date format in MOS as "always preferred", why would they not be in danger of thinking that the whole of WP requires US spelling? MOS is written in AmEng, merely because it was started in that variety. Tony (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
With "make the change" I simply mean apply the changed text to the guidance as described above. Really, don't read too much into words - I'm just allowing plenty of time for people to state their opinion rather than foisting the new text onto them with minimal discussion. AGF! As to AmEng, we don't have autoformatting for that, unlike dates. BTW, I think "Happy New Year" is in order in your timezone? -- Arwel (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
To Tony—the MoS being written in American English should not preclude examples which are not in American English. Nor of appropriate mention of other varieties of English. In fact, due to the nature of this guide in applying to articles written in various varieties of English, that would seem desirable.
To Arwel—some change is needed, but not necessarily along your lines. What is there is both too overprescriptive (I agree with Random832 and there are other options, used well in many Misplaced Pages articles, as well) and too broad, especially in the interpretation you pointed out in the disputed lifespan dates; but yours is also too overprescriptive. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Gene, could you give an example of what you would think is not too overprescriptive? -- Arwel (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there are two issues:
  • 1. Guidance about brackets around dates. As with legal issues, the wording should match the intent. It clearly did not in this case. I think I agree with Arwel about the intent. As long as everybody else is happy, I will go along with whatever wording meets the intent.
  • 2. The use of autoformatting within the MoS itself. I agree with Tony that autoformatting is not required to understand the point being made and could have a negative effect. Article space and MoS space serve different purposes. The "style guide for the style guide" should not mandate autoformatting within the MoS. The priority should be clarity of communication, not trying to look like an article. Lightmouse (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Why not use the date format that is used in the majority of sources related to each article with disambiguation to the mostly internationally recognised format (dd/mm/yyyy) on the first occurrence of a date format that is opposite? Fnagaton 07:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Autoformatting doesn't exist for "disambiguation" purposes. It exists to make the articles more easily read when the preferences are set. For that, you need all the dates properly formatted. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you think is "properly formatted"? Fnagaton 13:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
"Properly formatted" means "wikilinked", thus "] ]" or "], ], - either will appear as the reader wishes to see it if the users preference is set. -- Arwel (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
So like I said above the format of the date used in the article should be that found in the reliable sources used for that article. Fnagaton 15:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Most certainly not. That would leave us with a horde of ambiguous all-digit dates, for example. We are entitled to set our own "look and feel" and use a consistent style. In this case, our consistency limits it to a small number of options. It doesn't allow the display to include either decimal points as ordinal indicators on dates, nor "th" and the like. It doesn't include two-digit shortening outside of a range of years (no 15 January 79 when you mean 15 January 1979). No ugly "January 15 1979"; with autoformatting, a comma in the middle is always included (even for people who do not have preferences set) for Month DD, YYYY format, and it is always excluded in DD Month YYYY format. This is an important part of our overall look and feel; even if it does allow for a reasonable degree of variation, it is one consistent format within each of the classes of options available for preferences. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Not using the hint from the reliable sources means you get editors choosing their own personal preference, which is also broken. Fnagaton 23:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The following are *not* reasons for autoformatting
  • ambiguity. Most editors use 'mmm' or 'mmmm' and they are unambiguous. The ISO format is the only unambiguous 'mm' style.
  • ease of reading. The highlighting of dates is a distraction that makes articles harder to read.
In all the discussions about autoformatting, the most common reasons given is:
  • preference. Similar to variant of english preference 'color' over 'colour'.
Lightmouse (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I certainly agree with Lightmouse's observations immediately above, and his argument further up that in MOS, "the priority should be clarity of communication, not trying to look like an article". Tony (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

related Template:Daterange

On a related note, consider improvements to {{Daterange}}. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

user-friendly hard-space code

Hard spaces are the subject of a section in MOSNUM. May I point out to contributors that this requires hard spaces to be inserted between all instances of "p." and page number, and "pp." and page range. It is onerous using the current html code to satisfy the requirement in large numbers of references in an article.

It is in all our interests to vote for a better code, and to support the subsequent process of having it implemented technically. Noetica and others have finalised a shortlist of options for a new hard-space code; you can register your vote HERE. Tony (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If it weren't grossly overused, due in large part to this subpage's recommendations, we wouldn't need any new code. Especially the example cited here by Tony, where a hard space serves no useful purpose. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
An interesting minority opinion, Gene, especially given all of the recent discussion of spacing in numerals. Now consider this text:

12 sq ft (p. 37)

Are you happy for this text to break between 12 and sq, or sq and ft, or p. and 37? Most editors aren't, and such breaks are frowned upon in print. Current markup to prevent this? These are available:

{{nowrap|12 sq ft}} {{nowrap|p. 27}}

12&nbsp;sq&nbsp;ft (p.&nbsp;37)

Misplaced Pages can do better, as it has done by replacing <i>...</i> with ''...''.
Are you one of the 0.01% (my guess) of Misplaced Pages editors who prefer and use <i>...</i>?
Vote now, I say!– Noetica Talk 20:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm perfectly happy for that text to break between "12" and "sq". That's a logical place to break.
So are authorities such as the NIST Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI), and I don't know of any authority giving rules remotely close to the Misplaced Pages MoS nonsense.
That is even more self evident when you have measurements such as "G = (6.67428±0.00067)×10 m kg s", as Gravitational constant does (expressed using math markup there). There are hundreds of other examples on Misplaced Pages more like this one than your "12 sq ft" example.
  • The only logical places for a break in that sequence are after the equal sign and "between the numeric element and the non-numeric element" (in Wikijargon terms), i.e. between the 10 and the m.
  • It is rather short-sighted and senseless to write our rules as if the most complicated measurements anybody here is going to have to deal with is "12 ft" or something along those lines.
No, I'm not happy for that text to break between "sq" and "ft", but unfortunately the MoS does NOT say that it shouldn't. It prescribes nonbreaking spaces where they are not necessary, and yet doesn't mention them where they should exist, for example to keep a single unit symbol from breaking, or to keep a single number from breaking, as in its prescription of "33 1/3&nbsp;rpm" (33 1/3 rpm) rather than prescribing "33&nbsp;1/3 rpm" (33 1/3 rpm) or in "0.453 592 37 kg". Neither of those involve "numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space" (the Misplaced Pages magic invocation); the former is between two letters, and the latter is between two numerals.
Yes, I see no problem whatsoever with a break between "p." and "37". Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Gene, it is mildly interesting to see your preconceptions on display, once again. Let me say where I agree with you: MOS and its satellites do not yet do an adequate job of prescribing uses of the hard space. (There, that's it!)
MOS should do better with prescriptions for the hard space; but I for one am reluctant to work towards that until we have adequate markup. For your information, other style guides do rule on such things. Some don't, much: they assume that it will all be fixed at the typesetting stage, and they don't address that stage. But we can't pass the buck here: we editors are writers, checkers, reviewers, and "typesetters" ourselves. Many who edit at MOS miss that salient difference. I fear you are one of them.
You might be interested in the deliverances of authorities that do rule on hard spaces and SI practice. Here's a sample I found, after just fifteen seconds of searching:

Leave a space between the number and the unit, for legibility. On a computer, use a non-breaking ("hard") space, when available, if there is a danger that the space will break and wrap to the next line. (Metric in Minutes: The Comprehensive Resource for Learning the Metric System (SI), Dennis Brownridge, 2001).

Then again, perhaps you will not be interested.
The source I cite cites the source you cite. But since yours is silent on the matter, mine has to supplement it with rules for hard spaces. However, even your source, in its HTML version itself uses the hard space where there is a risk of separating a number from the unit that follows:

 0.25&nbsp;s is the correct form, <I>not</I> .25&nbsp;s. 

And though it doesn't use the format "p. xx", it does use the exactly analogous format "Sec. xx". In doing so, it consistently follows the very principle that MOS currently prescribes, and that you reject:

 that represents a number (see <a href="#10.2.1">Sec.&nbsp;10.2.1</a>,<a href="#10.2.3">Sec.&nbsp;10.2.3</a>, and <a href="#10.2.4">Sec.&nbsp;10.2.4</a> .

So the very source that you cite refutes you: not in what it says (because it says nothing relevant), but in what it does!
– Noetica Talk 11:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
"Do as they do, not as they say" doesn't really help you much with respect to NIST SP811. Not only do they not state such a rule, but they also don't follow such a rule, at least not invariable. The html version does not use spaces in many places where this Misplaced Pages MoS prescribes them. But it isn't also the html version, either. Let's look at the pdf version (86 pages) and the printed version available from here.


NIST Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI), 1995
Breaks at Section, etc. page
5 × 10
NO3 molecules/cm 		Sec. 7.5 print p. 17
Secs.
6.1.1 to 6.1.8 		Sec. 4.2 print p.4
(see Table
5.) 		Sec. 6.2.2 pdf p. 26
(see Sec.
5.4) 		Chapter 2 pdf p. 13
in Chapter
11, which 		Preface pdf p. 6
Let's take a look at some more examples, also. Which of these is more sensible, the existing MoS guidance, or the way I'd do it?
Version Wikicoded Possible line breaks
MoS version constant&nbsp;(6.67428±0.00067)×10&nbsp;N m s
  • constant (6.67428±0.00067)×10 N
    m s
  • constant (6.67428±0.00067)×10 N m
    s
My version constant (6.67428±0.00067)×10 N&nbsp;m&nbsp;s
  • constant
    (6.67428±0.00067)×10 N m s
  • constant (6.67428±0.00067)×10
    N m s
Note that if I'm adding that constant myself, I'd generally prefer the alternative version "constant (6.67428±0.00067)×10 N·m·s" with centered dots. The &middot; has a couple of advantages: 1) it is nonbreaking in Misplaced Pages, and 2) it is, AFAIK, thinner than a hard space, or at least no wider than it, in any font/platform/browser combination. But if the article already uses the also-acceptable spaces in this context, I'll likely leave it that way (going with the dots in case of preexisting inconsistency).
MoS version
(literal) 		25,566.497&nbsp;acre feet per year
  • 25,566.497 acre
    feet per year
  • 25,566.497 acre feet
    per year
  • 25,566.497 acre feet per
    year
MoS version
(de facto) 		25,566.497&nbsp;acre&nbsp;feet&nbsp;per&nbsp;year none
My version 25,566.497 acre-feet per year
  • 25,566.497
    acre-feet per year
  • 25,566.497 acre-feet
    per year
  • 25,566.497 acre-feet per
    year
Misplaced Pages hyphens appear to always be nonbreaking, which is weird. Is there any way to get around that?
MoS version
(literal) 		five&nbsp;miles none
My version five miles five
miles
 
MoS version
(literal) 		less than&nbsp;12&nbsp;lb/sq in
  • less
    than 12 lb/sq in
  • less than 12 lb/sq
    in
My version less than 12 lb/in²
  • less
    than 12 lb/in²
  • less than
    12 lb/in²
  • less than 12
    lb/in²
From Office of Commercial Space Transportation article. Note that these are not psi (so that is not an acceptable substitute here), these not units of pressure or stress; the pounds in this ballistic coefficient are not pounds-force. Note that we don't need to worry about spaces in the denominator of the units, breaking or breaking, if we use "in²". Note also that hardly anybody outside Misplaced Pages MoS uses "sq in" rather than "in²" in contexts such as this.
The MoS rules are wacky, often bass-ackwards from what they should be. In many measurements, the space between the numerical part and the units is a logical place for a break, there is no reason to avoid a break when using spelled out words rather than symbols, and there should be no breaks within the numerals, nor within the units expressed in symbolic form. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Noetica's response to Gene Nygaard

Gene, here are some points raised by your contributions above:

  • This section was initiated to remind editors of a discussion about possible new markup for the hard space, and in particular to invite editors to vote (HERE!). The link takes editors to an orderly discussion: one that has not been possible at this page or at WT:MOS.
  • While we are all free to divert to any topic we like, it is not helpful always to do so. The primary intention may be obscured.
  • Clearly you don't like the hard space much, no matter how it is implemented. Nevertheless, many MOS editors and others do want better markup for the hard space. And anyway, the question of markup should be treated separately from policies for the use of the hard space. Please try to respect the independence of these two issues.
  • Since you have raised the matter, though, I will answer you once more in summary form:
  • You wrote: "I'm perfectly happy for that text to break between '12' and 'sq'. That's a logical place to break." But you cannot cite a source that agrees with you. Some sources admit the need to compromise, in complex cases. No one disputes that some cases are difficult! On the other hand, where the issue is addressed at all in style guides, such a break is by default prohibited. I gave an excellent example above, and you ignored it. I could give more; but obviously I would be wasting my time. Instead of looking at the evidence presented, you pursue the detail of complex cases that demand compromise.
  • Yes, there are a few lapses in the HTML version of the work that you cited and that I analysed. So what? A consistent effort is made in that document to do exactly what MOS currently prescribes. How else can we account for the very prevalent use of &nbsp; in that document (in "Sec.&nbsp;xx" especially)? The PDF version of that document as you cite it supersedes the first printing in April 1995, and "includes some minor typographical corrections." All such documents are acknowledged to be fallible, and the newer printing is not perfect either. Again, so what?
  • You wrote, concerning hard space when giving page numbers, of "the example cited here by Tony, where a hard space serves no useful purpose". Faced with the evidence that major style guides addressing this issue agree with Tony and disagree with you, how will you react? For this, and the last point about numbers with units, consider the ruling from the pre-eminent British style guide:

The same device should be used to link abbreviations and numbers that belong together: 3 km, pp. 6–10, etc. (New Hart's Rules, 2005, section 2.5.1.)

That is an unimpeachable and respected source. You are entitled to disagree with its ruling (as I myself often disagree with CMOS). But very plainly yours is the opinion of a tiny minority.
  • In the end, you are free to write whatever you like here. But I would ask you to think first: separate the issues, and don't relentlessly push only your own agenda. Some of us want to focus on improving markup; your minority views on usage are a separate matter. Discuss them separately and elsewhere, please. I will engage with you on usage when markup is made rational. But no more here, and no more now.

– Noetica Talk 00:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you have chosen to rely on Dennis Brownbridge's rules as one of your authorities, are you now willing to back me up on getting the MoS pages fixed in accordance with his next rule?
  • "Use normal (upright) type for unit and prefix symbols. Use italic (slanted) type for quantity, variable, and constant symbols." (See the subthread discussion in #combinations of units below.)
Note also that neither of the two authorities you cited provide any support whatsoever for using non-breaking spaces with spelled-out units. All their examples involve unit symbols, and simple one-unit-only (not involving more than one unit) symbols. Just like the situation with our MoS, the failure to include more complex examples is clear evidence of a half-thought out, unbaked idea. Calling for non-breaking spaces with spelled out units is just one of the ways in which the current MoS rules are grossly overreaching. The prior longstanding MoS rules did only apply to symbols.
In fact, New Hart's Rules is very explicit in limiting its scope to "abbreviations" for the units.
Note also that despite Brownbridge's "Guidelines for correct use (and common mistakes)", Rule 2, which you cited above, on the source code for that page the spaces are ordinary spaces, not non-breaking spaces, even for the examples such as "35 mm" illustrating that very rule. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Not relevant to the vote (although I like the idea of a simple markup rather than using &nbsp; to get hard spaces), but relevant to the MOS itself: just checked the {{harv}} series of reference templates, and they don't use &nbsp; in their code; I've left a message at harv's talk page to see if anyone objects to changing the templates. If there aren't any objections, I'll do that in the next few days. Carre (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
That's true, Carre. And it should be fixed. We need to make the same point more explicitly at WP:MOS and a few other places also. I'll do that myself in a moment.
Don't forget to vote! :)
– Noetica Talk 20:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
How do I look up what <i> means in Misplaced Pages? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors are not the only group interested in hard spaces. I recently discovered that the newest stable release of GNU Emacs (22.1.1) displays the Unicode no-break space (decimal code 160) as a colored underscore. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Gerry Ashton and Gene Nygaard, there's too much talk and not enough action on this page. I'm very disappointed that you're causing the process of making a very worthwhile technical improvement to Wiki harder, not easier. I'm starting to think that you're just conservatives for the sake of being so, and will stand in the way of any change. Tony (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

combinations of units

Omegatron just added

  • When units are combined by multiplication, use a middle dot to separate them (kW·h, not kWh, kW h, kW-h, or kW•h)

It's a good edit, in the sense that it improves on what was there before. However, I see nothing wrong with a space (as alternative to the dot) to separate the units (kW h). I also agree with a point Gene Nygaard has made on numerous occasions, which is that unit symbols should not appear in italics. It helps nobody, and confounds those attempting to make a distinction between symbols representing variables (which in standard scientific writing practice are italicised) and symbols representing units (which are not). Thunderbird2 (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit would be even better if it suggested easy ways to enter the dot, and specified which of the several Unicode raised dots should be used. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
It's the one which appears right in the top row of the characters on your edit screen, right after "Insert", the character following the right arrow and preceding the section sign. It is not the "bullet" character, which appears under "Symbols" there just before the paragraph sign. It is the one you can enter using &middot; (·) (not the one you get with &bull;; that • is heavier, the one in the final entry of THunderbird2's list). I enter it on my PC using numeric keypad Alt-0183, which means it could also be entered using &#183; · or &#0183; · or &#xB7; · as well.
I'd suggest "middle dot (&middot;)" on the project page, to show one way it can be achieved.
However, I think it is overprescriptive for us to prohibit the also-acceptable to the standards organizations use of a space in this context, but we need to specify that if a space is used it should be non-breaking. Can we recommend the middot (as the simpler, and easier to read version, taking up less space, while allowing the non-breaking space alternative? What would be the simplest way to specify that?
And yes, once again, symbols for units of measure should never be italicized. This rule was set forth by the CGPM way back in 1948, and there is no good reason for us not to follow it everwhere including the MoS pages. There are too many cases such as C for heat capacity and C for coulombs, T for temperature and T for teslas, and the like, where a distinction based on typography needs to be made. It causes people familiar with the normal rules to do a double-take to try to figure out what is meant, when they run across improperly italicized unit symbols. Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me what purpose this apparently eccentric change achieves? Ben MacDui/Walk 10:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Omegatron's edit specifies how to present combinations of units when they are multiplied together. The purpose of the change is to make such combinations unambiguous. For example to distinguish between a millisecond (ms) and a metre-second (m·s or m s). I see no eccentricity except the use of italics for unit symbols. Thunderbird2 (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Accepting that there are ambiguities that need attention, in what countries or circumstances is anything other than 'kWh' normally used? A second more general question if I may. Given that such a change will likely impact many thousands of articles, by what mechanism are editors made aware of either the proposal or the outcome (other than the painful expedient of watching this page and its siblings)? Ben MacDui/Walk 11:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know how often kWh is used as an abbreviation for kilowatt-hour, but I don't see it as the job of an encyclopaedia to promulgate the incorrect use of unit symbols, regardless of how common the error might be. It is the beauty of WP that we can fix these things as we find them.
  • The main mechanism for promulgating correct usage is through the watt-hour article itself (which I have just updated to give the correct unit symbol). Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, you have answered neither question. I shall assume that for the second is "none". I am afraid the further I wade into MOS the more dysfuctional it appears to be, and I would love to be corrected on this front. The idea that edits on obscure pages can result in thousands of articles falling foul of MOS without any serious discussion is bizarre. You suggest a correct usage, but based on what? I looked at 'What links here' from kilowatt-hour and any of the articles I looked at that had an abbreviation had 'kWh' (of course). I have little doubt that this idea will be widely ignored - and rightly so. Ben MacDui/Walk 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I did not reply to the first question because a) I consider it to be irrelevant, for the reasons stated (although I know editors who would probably disagree) and b) I don't know the answer anyway. I did answer the second question.
  • Your reply suggests that changes are made without discussion. In what sense is the change not being discussed? Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There may be all kinds of things going on here that I do not understand but -
a) I conclude that 'kWh' is used just about everywhere except, for the nonce, Misplaced Pages. This seems to me to be an attempt to ignore standard usage rather than create a style based on the same. A sort of "MOS OR".
b) I note that the above discussion begins: "Omegatron just added", as opposed to "Omegatron just proposed" or "After discussion and agreement at WP:ABCD Omegatron just added.." (Obviously I could attempt to revert it but somehow I imagined that important changes in style affecting a whole raft of articles might somehow emerge after full discussion rather than just become a rather lame edit conflict.)
c) I suspect that one tenth of one per cent of users of 'kWh' bother to watch kilowatt-hour. I also note that whilst the "main mechanism for promulgating correct usage" is apparently the relevant article, you imply this occurred after the change here.
I fear it is the system that is the problem here, not those who are attempting to work with it in rather difficult circumstances. Ben MacDui/Walk 17:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC) PS I am an XL5 fan myself.
I believe Omegatron's edit is an improvement. Otherwise I could have reverted it (and so could you). Consensus is sometimes achieved before making an edit and sometimes after. A controversial edit is liable to be reverted immediately, and so is best to discuss before-hand. You only need to watch the page a couple of days on the trot to witness that. But in less controversial cases, it is sometimes more effective to just get on and do it. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Ben MacDui does not seem to have noticed that language related to measurement is often controlled by an entirely different mechanism than language in general. The government (with the possible exception of France and Quebec) generally leaves language to develop according to the consensus of the people; for most language, "standard usage" is the arbitier of correct usage. However, language related to measurement is regulated by the government. Misplaced Pages is located in the United States, and the U.S. constitition, article 1, section 8, states: "The Congress shall have Power To. . .fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". I am not aware of a similar power that applies to split infinitives. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I had noticed, and I see below that we agree that MOS's intention is not to reflect the ambiguities and inconsistencies of everyday language, but to provide a consistent style that helps readers and editors can follow. Ben MacDui/Walk 15:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ben MacDui has also chosen to revert my correction to watt-hour. In doing so he removes the most obvious route by which other articles can be improved. That is his choice. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is a little mean to encourage me to be bold, and then grumble when I take you up on the suggestion. The reason I reverted the edit there is that I do not believe that 'kW h' is an accepted abbreviation. The edit certainly did not supply a reference. Perhaps I am ill-informed, but I don't believe that articles are the places either to suppress legitimate abbreviations or to invent usage for the supposed purposes of MOS. Ben MacDui/Walk 15:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ben. You had every right to revert my edit. As a result of my "grumbling" (your choice of word) Gerry Ashton gave you the reference you quite rightly insisted on, and Misplaced Pages has improved as a result of the whole process. I agree that abbreviations that are in widespread use should be acknowledged. Friends? Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Friends - absolutely! I'll try to find time to look at the article again. Ben MacDui/Walk 11:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I went back to the article and added the abbreviation 'kWh' plus refs from 3 different countries and a combination of business, education and industry. It is (in my limited experience) by far the most commonly used abbreviation. If for practical reasons that still elude me MOSNUM wishes to use a less common style, so be it, but the article should reflect international usage, not exclude information to suit MOS. Ben MacDui/Walk 11:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

specific counter proposal

How about this to replace Omegatron's new bullet:

  • When units are combined by multiplication, use a middle dot or hard space to separate them (e.g., for newton-metre, use the symbol N·m or N m, not Nm, N-m, or N•m)

Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The space is allowed by NIST, but that does not mean we have to use it. This is a style manual, a place to make arbitrary choices between acceptable alternatives in order to make Misplaced Pages look better. I suggest that Misplaced Pages always use the middle dot, and avoid the hard space, for this purpose. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I wonder is this to some degree a US/UK issue. To be candid I have never seen either 'middle dot' or 'Non-breaking_space' usage here. I also continue to wonder what the size of this problem is. 'kWh' is not likely to be confused with anything else. How many problem abbreviations are we talking about here? Ben MacDui/Walk 15:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
How many? Those N·m discussed above, I've had people grumble about them. In addition to kW·h, Misplaced Pages has many articles using MW·h, GW·h, and TW·h.
More references:
SAE TSB003 Rules for the SAE Use of SI Metric Units, 1999, section C.1.17:
6. Symbols for units formed from other units by multiplication are indicated by means of a half-high (that is, centered) dot or space.
EXAMPLE— N·m or N m
BIPM SI brochure, 8th ed. 2006, section 5.1
In forming products and quotients of unit symbols the normal rules of algebraic multiplication or division apply. Multiplication must be indicated by a space or a half-high (centred) dot (·), since otherwise some prefixes could be misinterpreted as a unit symbol.
Google search
kW·h -kWh -Misplaced Pages
This Google search will show you many places outside Misplaced Pages which use "kW·h"; of course, it will also show you some using weird things like "kw/h" for this unit as well, but the main point is that this certainly is not a Misplaced Pages invention, and it is one specifically mentioned in various places as the proper way to do it. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
More yet? Certainly.
"kgm" Nissan March Superturbo (which is, of course, the same as one of the pre-standardization symbols for kilograms, though that isn't what this is; this one should be converted to newton-meters)
"kgm" Browning Hi-Power (this one would convert to joules) this one and the torque example above should be "kgf·m" to disambiguate those nonstandard force units)
"kgm" Nuclear density
"kgm/min" Da Costa's syndrome (I don't even know what this is supposed to be)
"gm" Hepatorenal syndrome, this one shouldn't have a dot (shouldn't have an "m" either)
"mAh"
"VA"
Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sloppy and incorrect usage of unit names and symbols is rampant in commerce and in the popular media. Let's not sink to the level of the History channel, let's call for the correct usage in our manual of style. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style says to use "kWh" etc. That's a more appropriate source for a general audience publication. A google search on kWh produces 8.3 million hits; kw.h produce 500,000 hits, most of which are kw-h. The dot is quite rare. --agr (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Half a million hits is not "rare" by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, Google's "kWh" search includes the correct "kW·h" as well as "KWH" and "kwh" and a host of other improper usages. There's no reason for us not to do it properly, in accordance with the rules of the measurement standards organizations. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Very strange: a Google search for "kW·h -kWh" gives 7.3 million hits! Any explanation? −Woodstone (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I got 118,000 for "kW-h -kWh". It's because the middot doesn't work like my hyphen does; your results would be the same if you replaced with with a space. You are getting a search for both terms kw and h, but the h doesn't have to follow as the next word after kw.
The results are different yet if you search for
  • "kW h" -kWh
Note that my quotation marks here are part of the search here; don't know why that differs from my results using kW-h, I thought they'd be about the same.
The hyphen when preceded by a space (or maybe if first character in search), of course, is a "not" operator; it is only when it is preceded by a letter that it works something like adding quotation marks, though apparently not exactly the same. The capitalization probably doesn't matter in any case. 69.57.91.44 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Still mysterious. Searches including quotes:
  • "kW·h"
  • "kW·h" -kWh
Apparently less is more. But all this is not relevant for the discussion. −Woodstone (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Revised counter-proposal

Gerry, while I have no objection in principle to standardising on N·m, I have a very real, practical objection, which is that the symbol · appears on my screen as a meaningless black square. In case I am not the only user of WP afflicted with this problem, I suggest we compromise like this:

  • When units are combined by multiplication, use a middle dot (or hard space) to separate them (e.g., for newton-metre, use the symbol N·m or N m, not Nm, N-m, or N•m).

Thunderbird2 (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The character is even in ISO 8859-1 (and MacRoman), that’s about as safe as you get if you don’t want to limit to ASCII. You’re either using a strange, overly simple or broken font, or your system is seriously malconfigured (although I don’t know how).
A single preference is always the better choice for a style guide. Christoph Päper (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Further revised counter-proposal

OK, you've convinced me there's no significant advantage in permitting the space as alternative to the mid-dot. Does anyone object to this?

  • When units are combined by multiplication, use a middle dot to separate them (e.g., for newton-metre, use the symbol N·m, not Nm, N-m, N m or N•m).

Thunderbird2 (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh geez

  1. Why do such little things generate such protracted discussion?
  2. I added it because of an edit changing my usage of a middle dot · to a big ol' • dot. I am pretty sure the latter is not recommended by any standard or style guide.
  3. I based this recommendation on the usage in kilowatt-hour, the standards, and what I've seen as the consensus of Misplaced Pages editors over several years.
  4. I italicized the units because every other unit in this section is italicized when used as an example.
  5. We should stick with standards unless they are really out there. This is just a style guide, after all. Anyone is free to ignore it.
  6. "Descriptive" in this context doesn't mean "describing the way units are used in conversations at the mall" or even "the way units are typically used in Misplaced Pages articles by people who don't care"; it means "a generalization of the outcomes of many independent Misplaced Pages discussions on this subject".
  7. I personally don't like the space variant, and it will be interpreted as "they left out the slash" by too many people. — Omegatron 02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - you are only free to ignore these guidelines if you don't intend to put an article through GA/FA. Ben MacDui/Walk 11:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Another revision to the counter-proposal

I suppose it's too complicated for some, but how about this, an attempt to cover the common kWh cases but exclude the confusing or uncommon ones:

  • When units are combined by multiplication, use a middle dot (or hard space) to separate them (e.g., for newton-metre, use the symbol N·m or N m, not Nm, N-m, or N•m). A combination that is commonly written with no space between units may be expressed in this way if this is unlikely to cause confusion (e.g., kWh for kW·h is acceptable, but kgm for kg·m is not). atakdoug 06:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Ben MacDui/Walk 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why in the world would we encourage incorrect usage of units? How is "kW·h" likely to cause confusion?
And which is most "commonly written"? "kWh"? "kWhr"? "kW-hr"? My energy bill says "KWH".
It's fine if people put them in articles because they don't know any better, but we should at least be encouraging editors to fix them when possible. That's like saying "grammar and spelling errors are ok as long as they're common enough." — Omegatron 01:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If we were writing a general purpose usage manual, not associated with any particular publication, we might wish to list every acceptable usage. But we are not. We are writing a style guide just for Misplaced Pages, and we should describe the best usage for our purposes. Out of the thousands of possible compound units that could be formed by multiplication, I only know of one that is often written with no separation of any kind between the two symbols: "kWh". Why is a compound symbol that departs from the system used to form all (or almost all) other compound symbols the best symbol to use in Misplaced Pages? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the wording that is there now. If we wanted to permit exceptions, a much stronger case can be made for N m (or kW h), but even that did not find consensus. The place to mention that alternative symbols or abbreviations may be encountered is in the relevant individual articles, which in this case would be watt hour. Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the ångström a 'natural unit'?

The MoS contains the phrase:

  • "For example, natural units are often used: ångströms (or angstroms) are widely used ..."

I find it difficult to parse this. I looked at the link to the 'natural units' article and could not find ångström there. Can anybody tell me what that phrase means? Lightmouse (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the ångström is no more natural than the nautical mile, it's no natural unit. It seems to me that there's been some confusions of senses of the word natural. I don't believe that what was intended was the reference to natural units but to units the use of which seems "natural" in that feild, i.e. those units which are typically used there. Jɪmp 14:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it to "... for example, natural units are often used in relativistic and quantum physics, ångströms are widely used ..." Jɪmp 14:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.
Digressing a little, that bullet is too dogmatic. It should be modified to permit non-specialist options. Misplaced Pages is not an in-house publication targetted at specialists. It is an encyclopedia for non-specialists. Conventions within domains are relevant but not decisive. We should not *mandate* lakhs, dunams, hectolitres, ångströms, or tatami just because they are common in specialist publications. If an SI term does the job, it is worth using for the benefit of communication in a pan-domain international publication used by both specialists and non-specialists. Lightmouse (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The biggest problem with this section is that its whole purpose to prohibit the sensible conversions to the interdisciplinary and International System of Units. The rule here has nothing to do with sometimes including other units, but merely with saying that we cannot include conversions of them It should be thrown out in its entirety. And angstroms in particular are one unit not deserving of any special notice as being generally acceptable—I have no problem with their occasional use, as long as they are converted to the modern SI units as well. But there is absolutely no good reason to give them any endorsement on this MoS page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Lightmouse makes a good point, which is reminiscent of Crissov's call for "reflection" a couple of days ago. This is a pan-national encyclopaedia that should use - for the benefit of its pan-national readership - a pan-national system of units. This is precisely the purpose for which the International System of Units (or SI) was developed. There should be a statement encouraging its use as default at the start of the "Units of measurement" section. Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Digression on spelling: "ångström" and "angstrom"

The point about the ångström that I would raise right here is the spelling. JIMP has taken out the alternative spelling angstrom. This was the topic of a long exchange some time ago. Given that angstrom and several other variants are in style guides, most dictionaries, scientific literature, and Misplaced Pages, I suggest we retain the major alternative.

A Misplaced Pages search on one variant will find the others. But once a relevant article has been located through a Misplaced Pages search, a reader's or editor's browser search through a long article will find only the form searched for. For the reader, this then requires reading through the article until the wanted term is found. For the editor, it adds to the risk of errors and omissions in improving articles.

Google distinguishes between the forms, and a search on one may not find another.

Ångström itself gives the major variant immediately:

An ångström or angstrom (symbol Å) (Template:PronEng; Swedish: IPA: ) is a non-SI unit of length that is internationally recognized,...

Ångström and ångström are both exceedingly awkward to type in, as editors conributing to this very discussion have found! So unfriendly to new editors, especially. This also makes it hard to input them as search terms.

A Windows search for a filename (or file content) that includes ångström will not retrieve angstrom, and vice versa. Same for a search in MSWord. So if you have Misplaced Pages content stored locally, or want to edit it locally, the most used platform and the most used wordprocessor are at a loss with ångström and angstrom. But having one instance of each at the most salient locations helps dramatically.

For these reasons I am reinstating the variant (just one occurrence) in this long project page. Please leave it there: unless you present compelling reasons to remove it, strong enough to overcome the reasons I have taken the trouble to spell out here.

– Noetica Talk 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If the spelling of ångström causes so much grief, why is it even mentioned here? There are plenty other examples given to make the point. I say remove it altogether. What is needed is an example of a "natural unit", as the meaning is not explained. I suggest electron-volt. Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd say spell it the normal English way, angstrom. Just as the normal English spelling of ampere differs from the French spelling of that unit, and though it isn't named after a person, both English spellings of the meter differ from its spelling in French or Spanish or whatever. Even though ångström is one of the things I can easily enter myself; I've gotten pretty quick on my Alt-keypad entry of those characters plus a few others.
I wouldn't bet on Noetica's claim about search engines. It is possible that in this specific instance most of them will generally treat "angstrom" and "ångström" as synonyms, it is not in the general case true for spelling variants like that. And in any case, it can be at least partially overridden in most search engines. Just try the Google advanced searches for "angstrom -ångström" or "ångström -angstrom". Neither of them come up empty. Far from it, in fact, with 1.8 million hits for the former, and over 100,000 for the latter.
Just checked it out; not only would I not bet on it, but Noetica is just plain flat-out wrong. Here is the clincher:
Do this Google search for the unit plus the phrase "interplanar spacings" on English Misplaced Pages:
  • angstrom "interplanar spacings" site:en.wikipedia.org
Now try it again, changing the angstrom to ångström and you can find the article you were looking for, the one that Google missed when using the normal English spelling.
Other search engines such as the Yahoo! and the primitive Yahoo!-driven search engine on your Misplaced Pages page with the "Go" or "Search" box will also treat them differently. The Misplaced Pages one especially; its so crude that I'd be surprised if many people ever use it for serious searches, as opposed to being thrown into it when the article name you typed in and hoped to go to doesn't exist. Gene Nygaard (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
To Thunderbird2's suggestion: The electronvolt (modern preferred spelling) is not a "natural unit" either. See, for example, NIST Special Publication 811, with Sec. 5.1.3 Electronvolt and unified atomic mass unit, contrasted with Sec. 5.1.4 Natural and atomic units. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected then. Also, I didn't notice that the term "natural unit" is already linked, making an example less important. I still think that including ångström/angstrom is overkill. Thunderbird2 (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me clarify my comment above, too. There is a great big if involved here. I'd only say go with "angstrom" as opposed to "ångström" if there were any good reason for this unit to be mentioned at all in the MoS. But I don't see any such reason. Unless we are going to say never use it except in discussions of its existence and definition, there is no reason for it to be here. If we want to say that angstroms don't fit our style, that we choose not to make ourselves look like a herd of dinosaurs, and that when used in any actual measurements they can be replaced on sight with SI units, with the angstroms completely removed from the text, I'd be happy with that. In this case, we generally don't have the situation of losing the sense of the precision of the original measurement, as we do with many other old units that are not related to the SI units by even powers of 10, such as millimeters of mercury or kilograms-force. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Gene Nygaard, before you claim that an editor making a careful, reasoned submission here is "just plain flat-out wrong" wrong, get your own facts right. No, wait: read first, then think, then experiment, then get your facts right, then report accurately.
I wrote (emphasis added, now):

Google distinguishes between the forms, and a search on one may not find another.

That is a cautious statement, based on experience and analysis. Your reponse is wild. Conduct the following two searches in Google (including the quote marks):

Search 1. "of 17 ångström"

Search 2. "of 17 angstrom"

Report your results here. And I await your retraction and your apology.
Which other statements of mine do you question? I want details, not blustering accusations that I am wrong, when I have checked my facts assiduously.
– Noetica Talk 11:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I owe you no apology whatsoever. You claimed that "A Misplaced Pages search on one variant will find the others." That is false. Sometimes true, sure, as I said. They are indeed sometimes treated as synonyms by search engines. But all it takes is one counter-example to prove that false as a general statement.
I will grant that there is some ambiguity in what you meant by that—what did you intend by "a Misplaced Pages search"? But no matter what you intended, the simple fact is that most anybody else will read that as I did, as applying to a search of Misplaced Pages on any search engine. You clearly knew that I was so interpreting it, because what I talked about was a Google search, and then you told me to do the search below "on Google" and report on it. (Nobody actually uses the box on our Misplaced Pages pages for any serious searches, do they? That's used for its "Go" function, it switches to an occasionally useful search if an article with that particular spelling and capitalization is not found.)
Here is your suggested search
Google hits link
"of 17 ångström" 0
"of 17 angstrom" 18
Misplaced Pages built-in search engine hits link
of 17 ångström 71
of 17 angstrom 71
Note that the crude Misplaced Pages search will not do exact phrases. Including quotation marks around those searches results in zero hits. The word "of" is most likely completely ignored. Not sure if it is an "and" search for both "17" and "angstrom/ångström"; it is not an "or" search (would have more hits).
The Google results you asked me to report on clearly disprove your prior claim that "A Misplaced Pages search on one variant will find the others." Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Gene Nygaard, anyone who reads through what you have just written, and who then looks above to check what's going on, will find that you are completely and utterly lost.

Yet again, look at what I wrote (do try to pay attention this time, especially to the added emphasis):

A Misplaced Pages search on one variant will find the others. But once a relevant article has been located through a Misplaced Pages search, a reader's or editor's browser search through a long article will find only the form searched for. For the reader, this then requires reading through the article until the wanted term is found. For the editor, it adds to the risk of errors and omissions in improving articles.

Google distinguishes between the forms, and a search on one may not find another.

Now, all the evidence you present above confirms what I have written! It is therefore astonishing that you claim the contrary, and seek to have it seem that I was incautious. I used the phrase Misplaced Pages search with its obvious meaning: twice. It is a search using Misplaced Pages's search facility. I had not at that stage even mentioned Google. Then in a new paragraph, I went on to say something about Google (something true!).

No one with the slightest interest in reading through this painful exchange, and equipped with even a modicum of capacity to analyse, will be convinced for a moment.

It is clear that you are either unwilling or unable to deal with the rather simple issue I have raised. I suggest we drop the matter, and move on. It is absurd that I should have to labour at demonstrating the obvious to you, over a two-word clarification on the page we are supposed to be improving.

– Noetica Talk 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Shall I try explain why I removed it in the first place? Surely the MoS is no place for details such as this. The word had been linked to its article so anyone interested in the details could have looked there. Removal of clutter: this is the reason which compelled me to remove the varient spelling. Could you have found the word with this search engine or that? What did it matter? The mention of the unit was merely for the purpose of example. If you're looking for ångströms, what use would what you'd have found here have been? They've been removed altogether now so varient spelling is a moot point ... as long as it stays that way ... and well it should for this is not the type of unit we should be encouraging as Gene rightly points out. Jɪmp 18:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimp. (Thanks also to Thunderbird2 for removing ångström from the text.) Of course I understand your reasons for taking out the gloss angstrom; and I am sure you can understand the reasons I have put forward for retaining one occurrence of it on this long project page, if that unruly term ångström had been retained.
The angstrom-Angst has served to illustrate a number of problems in devising and maintaining MOS guidelines. They are important, and we should direct our attention to them.
– Noetica Talk 22:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed revision of section "Which system to use"

The current text is:

Which system to use
  • For US-related articles, the main units are US units; for example, 10 miles (16 km).
  • For UK-related, the main units are either metric or imperial (consistently within an article).
  • For other country-related articles, the main units are metric; for example, 16 kilometres (10 mi).
  • American English spells metric units with final -er (kilometer); in all other varieties of English, including Canadian English, -re is used (kilometre).
  • In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic. This will usually be SI, but not always, for example, natural units are often used in relativistic and quantum physics, ångströms (or angstroms) are widely used in such fields as x-ray crystallography and structural chemistry, and Hubble's constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s−1.
  • If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses.

I propose simplifying and replacing that with:

Which system to use
By default, the main units are SI. Exceptions are as follows:
  • For US-related articles, the main units are US units; for example, 10 miles (16 km).
  • For UK-related articles, the main units are either SI or imperial.
Sequence of units
  • Main units should come before any other units.
  • If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second.
Spelling
  • American English spells SI units with final -er (kilometer); in all other varieties of English, including Canadian English, -re is used (kilometre).

I think it expresses the same principles in a simpler form, apart from eliminating the bizarre prohibition on SI units in some scientific articles. Comments? Lightmouse (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. At work we use angstroms all the time (UV and visible light astronomy) but before I started working here I wouldn't have known one from a hole in the ground. FYI: an angstrom is 1/10th of a nanometer. Dfmclean (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to get into spelling, Americans don't use "tonnes" either, but Canadians do. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd throw the whole thing out. Sure, if I had my druthers, I'd do an all-SI encyclopedia and get rid of everything else, but I'd be in a small minority there. But this is just too much of a gross oversimplification. And to much U.S./UK–centric on top of it. There are too many contexts for which the most-used units in the U.S. are metric, for example. For another example, Australia is one of the few places where SI units are common for food energy, even though a number of other places in the world do include the SI units on their nutrition labels; but the U.S. does not use U.S. units in this context, nor does the UK use imperial units. No British thermal units for this anywhere, nor foot-pounds force. Rather, both the U.S. and UK use a different flavor of Fred Flintstone units. Another example is blood pressure. Not SI in most places. Not U.S. units anywhere, either. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of discussion (a.k.a. arguing) went into that "scientific articles" bullet part. If you were to drop/alter it, you may cause another huge storm over it again. It's probably best to just leave well enough alone.
I know this is a discussion up above this discussion, but for what's it worth: I wouldn't use the term SI. I would use the term metric instead. Reason being, that I've seen editors change Hectares to square kilometers and even square meters and change centimeters to meters, some claiming to do so to comply with SI format (or something similar). I don't remember anyone changing grams to kilograms, but I am sure somewhere that someone is itching to do so. I think that the Hubble example kind of demonstrates that common use of non-SI metric units. There is also the odd need to include the SI unit hPa with the metric unit mbar in almost all Hurricane articles. Millibar, the standard metric unit for hurricane pressure used by most sources that I've seen and hPa are equal to each other and it looks odd right next to each other in articles such as Hurricane Katrina. Another area that I've seen this, is the use of the metric unit centipoise (cP) and the SI unit millipascal-second (mPa·s) for viscosity measurements. Again both are equal to each other and cP is the more common of the two in usage. While adding the SI unit of equal quantity looks odd, I can only assume that there is a need for it. My thinking is that if you use the term SI instead of metric, someone may take that as a license to start removing non-SI metric units that maybe much more common to that particular situation (i.e. the Hubble telescope or viscosity of Toluene). —MJCdetroit (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The addition of SI units (in the proper, strictest meaning) should always be acceptable, at least in the case of other units not specifically listed as acceptable for use with the SI (and in most cases for those units as well). That's the modern metric system, the one taught throughout the world, the one most likely to be understood by anyone, the interdisciplinary as well as the international standard. Just like much of the old computer software, there is only one system of measurements still fully supported and updated today. Some people can get by without updating for a while, but eventually they will find a need to communicate with the rest of the world and need to make the upgrade. To what extent non-SI units should remain and especially whether they should be added to articles already including the SI measurements is debatable, but it doesn't matter if they are numerically equivalent or not, it is still different units and some people are going to be familiar with one and not the other. And remember, we are addressing a general audience; jargon peculiar to a particular field of activity would at most justify the inclusion of that jargon usage in an article. It does not justify exclusion of the units understood by a more general audience (which will, in almost every case, also be understood quite readily by those familiar with the obsolete units still clung to by dinosaurs in that field). Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Two points:
  • The default should definitely read "SI", and not "metric". The whole point about SI is that it is an international system of units, understood the world over. I see no a priori reason to prefer non-SI metric units over other non-SI units. At the same time it needs to be clear that the default units are there for when there is no obvious alternative (isn't that what "default" means?).
  • I see no need to mention differences in spelling, except to remark that usual spelling rules apply.
Thunderbird2 (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we move forward on this? Feel free to make alternative proposals. Lightmouse (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Gene Nygaard: if I had my druthers, I'd do an all-SI encyclopedia and get rid of everything else, but I'd be in a small minority there. I'd certainly be in that minority, and wonder how small the minority would be. I also wonder about the truth of the frequent allegations hereabouts that Brits have great difficulties with units that are used consistently to their immediate east, south, and west, and often even, I think, among themselves.
Archaic measurements are of course fine for matters that were (or, bizarrely, still are) so defined. And non-SI metric units too have their little places. -- Hoary (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see something that embodies two simple principles: that units are chosen by local consensus; and that the preferred default system, in absence of consensus, is SI. Perhaps something like this:

Which system to use
  • The system of units is chosen by consensus per article. Once chosen, the units are applied consistently within that article.
  • Where no clear consensus emerges, the International System of Units (SI) is used.
  • In those articles for which a consensus emerges to use an alternative, a conversion to SI is provided (example conversion here)
  • All non-SI units are linked or defined on first use.

What this text does not address is the loss of accuracy that can arise due to conversion from source units. I think that can be treated as a separate point. Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed changes. The units used in the reliable sources relevant to the article should always be used as the primary units in the article. Fnagaton 13:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that the current guidance relating to source units should be retained? It says:
  • If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second.
If so, I would not object. Lightmouse (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but none of this By default, the main units are SI. The primary rule should be use the units found in the relevant reliable sources. Fnagaton 14:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
There will be many cases (the majority?) for which information comes from different primary sources. Fnagaton's rule would mean jumping between different unit systems within an article, defeating its object by making it incomprehensible. Can we at least agree on "Once chosen, the units are applied consistently within that article."?Thunderbird2 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
No there wouldn't be any "hopping around" within an article since (like I posted before in a section below) it's easy to look at the reliable sources relevant to the article, pick units most often used in those sources (a majority) and then apply that to the article. Only in rare cases will there be sources for an article where it is unclear what the real world (according the to reliable sources) consensus is for the units used and in those cases SI could be used. The "Once chosen, the units are applied consistently within that article" isn't really needed since an article should be allowed to grow and change to reflect changes in the reliable sources used for that article. So if in the future the sources are updated that reflect using different units then the article should be updated to reflect that change. By using my proposal the article is actually easier to understand since it reflects whatever units are used in its reliable sources. Fnagaton 15:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The process you describe as "look at the reliable sources relevant to the article, pick units most often used in those sources (a majority) and then apply that to the article" sounds to me like one that requires consensus. Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Not really. In most cases it's obvious what units are used in relevant reliable sources so there is hardly need to ask what the consensus is for each article. It also reflects the spirit of "In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic." and "If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second." by using more exact language. So if you want keep those two existing guidelines and drop the "By default, the main units are SI" that would be fine. The "main units are SI" is pushing one point of view over what the real world consensus is when considering each article. Fnagaton 16:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
You are proposing some nonsensical determination of "majority", for one thing; just because somebody has put similar nonsense about vague, undefined "scientific articles" in the MoS already is no excuse. "Source value" is one of several different meanings, a vague term with respect to what "source" means, but with no vagueness in the fact that it applies to particular measurements and not to some article as a whole concept. Furthermore, specialized jargon usage in any field of activity should never be determinative with respect to Misplaced Pages style. We are not a specialty publication in that field; we are addressing a general audience. A factor to be considered, sure. But in the case of determining which units of measure to use, it should be far down the line, perhaps just above some weird notion of UK-relatedness and U.S.-relatedness of an article considered as a whole in determining which units to use for a particular measurement. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong because I am not proposing some "nonsensical determination of majority" rather it is representative of the spirit of the existing guideline. We are addressing a general audience and that is precisely why Misplaced Pages is descriptive not prescriptive which means Misplaced Pages doesn't get to decide what units should replace those used by reliable sources relevant to an article. Even official international standards organisation do not agree on all aspects. By the way "source value" in the context of the current guideline does mean "the value from the source in its oriinal form" which also means what I wrote about "The units used in the reliable sources relevant to the article". Fnagaton 17:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to object to this blind pushing of SI units, regardless of context. Metric units have been used in science in Europe (and I include Great Britain in Europe), but it was the "cgs" system, centimetre, gram, second system; the current "mks", metre, kilogram, second system, is more recent (very early 1960s?). Metrification in the UK only dates back to a decision in 1965 to go metric within ten years; Australia and most of the British Commonwealth agreed to change at the same time, and did so before Britain. Much of the engineering in the UK was only changed to metric in the early 1970s, and it was not retrospective. The Weights and Measures Regulations (metric) only date back to the 1980s. We may have metric nuts and bolts, but most wood screws are still sold in Imperial lengths; cars are still assessed in consumption of miles per gallon, but we have also litres per 100 km. The USA has barely started to metricate, but it still uses Fahrenheit temperatures in engineering calculations. Could it be that some editors are pushing SI units merely to differentiate between British English and US English; and that this is preventing them accepting that there are good reasons for using Imperial and metric units (even in the same article) .Pyrotec (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I object to Pyrotec's suggestion that there is a hidden US-UK agenda here. The reason for proposing SI as the default choice of unit system (to be used when consensus fails to be provide an alternative) is that it provides a pan-national, unambiguous and language independent framework in which to work. It is used by scientists the world over (yes, that includes the United States of America) when they wish to be clear and minimise the chances of being misunderstood. If you read my words carefully you will see that the only time I mentioned the word "metric" was to say "I see no a priori reason to prefer non-SI metric units over other non-SI units". Where is the metric bias in that? While there may be legitimate reasons for mixing different units systems in the same article, I would expect such cases to be rare. Such cases excepted, what units would Pyrotec advocate in the absence of consensus in a particular article? Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If what you say is true then drop the language about "By default, the main units are SI." because that is seen as forcing the use of SI units. Instead keep the sections that effectively say "use the units used by the reliable sources". Fnagaton 17:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your point about reliable sources - I have seen numerous occasions when a unit has been converted back and forth like a yo-yo, losing information (or worse, adding misinformation) on each trip. The best way of dealing with this, in my view, is to find a way of labelling source information as "verbatim" and not paraphrased or converted. To be readable though, it is important for an article to maintain some consistency in both its language and units.
I do not wish to force SI on anyone or anything. What I do want is to provide a default for local editors to fall back on where they fail to reach consensus. And I do feel (strongly) that that default should be SI, not because it is a metric system, but because it is an unambiguous and universal system. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find that what one person thinks is unambiguous is sometimes seen by others as an attempt to rewrite history by promoting one point of view about what system to use. So if the intention is to provide some kind of default then how about "If the units to be used in an article are not obvious from the reliable sources relevant to the article then try to form consensus when changing the article from one unit to another. If consensus cannot be reached for an article then default to using SI units." Fnagaton 18:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty close to what I'm trying to say. I think it needs to be slightly less prescriptive about the precise process leading to the consensus though, while including a warning somewhere about the dangers inherent in any units conversion. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection whatsoever to SI units being used for scientific articles. I have made that point numerous times above. What I object to is the scientific argument being copied across the board, e.g. for Wikpedia articles the rule is: UK then SI units are preferred, US then US units preferred. We have Imperial Gallons, which are different to US Gallons, why do you insist that SI units go into UK articles. If I'm writing an article about a reservoir built anytime between the start of the canal age and (say) 1970, its capacity will have been given in Imperial Gallons, not litres or cubic metres, its acreage will be given in acres and its depth in feet - these are all legal units. If I'm writing about British weapon system anytime up to the 1970's, it would be described in lbs or inches. e.g. a 25 lb gun, a .303 rifle, a 2" or 3" rocket; post 1970s they would be 155 mm, or 105 mm, or 72 mm guns. When you agree to the use of legal British units of measurements in articles about pre-1975 (non-scientific) subjects and metric units where there is a legal requirement to use them I will be satisfied. The point has been made by others above that our speed limits are mph, we buy milk in bottles that contain one pint and we get beer in pint glasses. Why are the MoS rules being pushed way beyond the legal requirements of the Weights and Measures (metric) Acts; and why try to ignore the fact that metric units in the UK, for non-science applications, are little more than an introduction of the last 25 - 30 years. I've had WW I & WW II articles with in-line citations vandalised by box tickers, who change 2" to 50 mm, 3" to 75 mm, when those units were certainly not the units of measurements that were in use at the time.Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the issue is whether an article is trying to convey what people called things when they were built or used, or whether the article is trying to convey information about the size or quantity of something. If one were writing about how larger and larger water tunnels had to be built to supply drinking water to London, from the 18 century through today, it would be logical to put SI first, since that is the most understandable system, and the emphasis is on quantity. If one were describing the attributes of a U.S. WW II dual-purpose 5 inch naval gun, it would be logical to put inches first, since that's how it was named.
Once the main purpose of the article is determined, it should be consistent throughout, except official names of objects should not be altered, even if this means being inconsistent with the rest of the article. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thunderbird2, that's good. :) I'm sure you've seen times when vague language in the MOS has been argued about a lot inside article talk pages. Specifically I'm trying to get across that using SI units is a last resort and that there is a process that leads up to that last resort. For example the language "If the units to be used in an article are not obvious..." is there to stop one person appearing on an article, claiming there isn't consensus and then forcing the default to happen. I've seen it happen with one user in the past where they preferred to use one style of units and changed hundreds of articles even though the reliable sources clearly use another type of unit style, then when they were challenged they basically tried to Wikilawyer by taking it to the talk page on each article individually. Basically abusing the process to stall their changes as long as possible which is not productive. I feel the pain of Pyrotec because strictly speaking having SI mandated would mean someone could Wikilawyer that to mean all the references to WWI&II weapon sizes have to be changed. I gather from your comments that globally changing weapon sizes from inches to mms goes against what you would want to see as well? If so then that's why I think the guideline needs to use precise language (be prescriptive) for those times when editors do try some Wikilawyering. Fnagaton 19:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
"it should be consistent throughout", it should be consistent throughout the article and always use the value from the reliable sources first, when there is little doubt what the reliable sources use. Say for example if an article had two reliable sources and one used "feet" and the other used "chains" then I'd advocate using SI as coversions consistently in that article if nobody can make up their minds. If however the same article had ten reliable sources all using "feet" and maybe on reliable source using "chains" then the article should use feet first with a conversion in brackets to SI to disambiguate. Fnagaton 19:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I must disagree with Pyrotec on one point. Pyrotec wrote "Wikpedia articles the rule is: UK then SI units are preferred". This is wrong. It actually says "for UK-related, the main units are either metric or imperial (consistently within an article)". I would also suggest that in the case of a UK article that covers a timespan before and after metric conversion, and the sources reflect that change, SI should be preferred. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That's what it currently says, but the driving force on this page appears to be to force the use of SI, "because the user is too dumb, reader gets confused, editor was not born before metrication, "box ticker" can't handle uncertainty, etc, ad nusium". I'm not arguing about science articles - they can be also SI units, provided we can use temperature units of Fahrenheit in the article about Fahrenheit; it would also be useful to be able to measure blood pressure in units of mm of Hg (even if we have to use Torr and rename it). Pyrotec (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like the freedom to be able to use SI units in a (non-science) articles, where something was designed and built in SI units; and to use Imperial units for something that was built and designed using Imperial measurements. I'm not too worried if a tunnel that was built in chains, gets converted to metres, that is not necessarily important. However, we in the UK have hundreds of years of engineering experience, where power was historically measured in horsepower; and it makes much more sense to refer to it as a 10 hp (7.45 kw) engine - was the Austin Motor Company selling 7.45 kw cars in the 1910s to 1930s? We have an article on the .303 British bullet, where 0.303 is measured in inches, is it sensible to rename that to its metric equivalent? I would, also, like (in a very limited number of cases) to be inconsistent, where it is logical to do so: to give an (carefully chosen) example: Cordite, size matters. The descriptive numbering system, from its invention in the 1880s up to the 1960s, was to use a number such as "SC 120", where 120 is a dimension measured in thou; but after the 1960s it went metric, post-1960s the dimension is measured in mm, so obviously the number (and the unit of measurement changes). Obviously, we wish to use thous - which in this case is thousands of an inch (and inches) and mm in the same article.Pyrotec (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree with the above - especially in historical articles one should in general use the most appropriate historical units, for instance (to use an invented example), 'The great Pyramid was designed to be 1000 Egyptian Length Units along each side.' Often this will necessitate a conversion into both Imperial and Metric units - for instance '1000 Egyptian Length Units' (1.112 miles, 1.790 kilometres).' Equally I agree with the above with other comments on this page with respect to sources. If one is quoting a source then one should first use the value quoted in the source, whether or not this is in agreement with convention elsewhere in the article - e.g. 'the Spirt Rover was built with a 30.0 cm (0.982 foot) wheel base.... On its first day in operation it travelled 75 feet (23 meters) ', and sadly accept that this may be a little confusing for some readers. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilTarrant (talk • contribs) 22:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cases where a source is "quoted" are rare, and perhaps should be rarer than they are. But a source we use to get the information isn't the most relevant meaning of "source" when it comes to the measurements. The units in which the measurements were made are the relevant "source".
A more important distinction to be made is the difference between design elements and strictly measured quantities. The height of a mountain is a measured quantity, one that has often been done sometimes in feet and sometimes in meters even for any particular mountain anywhere in the world. The length of a horse race is a design element. It is set to be 9½ furlongs, or 2,400 meters, or whatever. The length of an Olympic sprint is a design element, one that we know to be designed in meters for most Olympics (but not all; some--probably especially the 1904 or 1908 or both from my recollections--had courses designed in yards). The distance an Olympic shot is put is a measured quantity. But in this case, unlike many other measurements, it is not measured in a variety of units. The primary, official distance is in meters to the nearest hundredth. That is the relevant "source" unit for our purposes: Even if we have a "cited source" giving that distance as "69 feet 3½ inches" to the nearest quarter of an inch (which can be evident from that publication saying so, or from looking at similar measurements in the same publication), from knowing the way those measurements are made we can reconstruct the original, official measurement of "21.12 meters".
And it doesn't matter in the least where some particular runner is from; the distances that runner runs are still designed in the same units. The notion of "US-related" or "UK-related" is totally irrelevant, here and in a huge number of our other measurements.
In particular, you are being disingenous in your vs. examples. What if it is the same measurement
'the Spirt Rover was built with a 300 millimeter (0.982 foot) wheelbase...
'the Spirt Rover was built with a twelve inch (305 mm) wheelbase wheelbase...
That more fairly illustrates the point. My point is, once we have the technical specifications, that overrides the fiddling done by the public affairs office. The relevant "source" now are those design numbers, not the fact that we can cite a reliable source giving a translation to some other units. And whether or not that "(0.982 ft)" was contained in some cited source or simply added by a Misplaced Pages editor, it would be entirely appropriate for another Misplaced Pages editor to come along and change it to "(11¾ in)". Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that we don't need to throw out our general knowledge when we act as Misplaced Pages editors. Part of the reason why I'd change the conversion of 300 mm to 0.982 ft is my own knowledge that while American civil engineers often use decimal fractions of a foot, American mechanical enginieers do not; they prefer decimal fractions of an inch. And nobody uses thousandths of a foot outside conversions like this. The general public is more likely to use inches and eighths or sixteenths, as are people in the construction trades. So if somebody changed that converted value to "11¾ in" in, maybe someone else will come along and argue that "11.8 in" is more appropriate in this mechanical engineering context.
But in all those cases, such as the practices in various fields of construction or engineering, there are a whole lot of other factors that are more important than "U.S.-related" or "UK-related", which remains the primary issue under discussion here. That country-relatedness, which has some relevance when talking about the use of national varieties of English in spelling and word choice issues, should be far down the line in any consideration of the appropriate units to use for any measurement. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it has little to do with country and it's been used so far as a red herring. The nature of the country for each article will mostly come from its reliable sources since if a subject has most interest in a specific country then that country will most likely produce the most references for that subject. So say there is a car that is produced for the UK market then most of the reviews and technical details for the customer will use mpg etc. If people used the simpler "use the units found in the majority of reliable sources relevant to the article" I'm willing to bet that would produce practically the same result as "decide what country the article is for". :) Fnagaton 16:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to propose better wording? Lightmouse (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to do some thinking on that. ;) Fnagaton 18:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with basing the first measurement system on what the majority of reliable sources use. An event covered by the U.S. mainstream media, but not especially related to the U.S., will probably be reported in mostly U.S. units, but SI units should be used first in Misplaced Pages. (Suppose, for instance, the issue is whale hunting in international waters by ships from several nations, and that no U.S. whalers are involved). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I know you disagree but saying "SI units should be used first" ignores the fact that other units are legitimately used in various topics, I don't think you have thought it through. Just because a "standards organisation" publishes something it does not automatically mean those are the units to be used. Misplaced Pages is descriptive not prescriptive therefore the sensible option is to let the real world decide what units should be used. i.e. The consensus from the real world where publications with editorial control, for example reliable sources, tell the article writers what units to use. If you really think "SI units should be used first in Misplaced Pages" regardless of the units used by the majority of relevant reliable sources then go ahead and try to edit feet and yards in American Football, I'll be very interested to see your reasons for why you don't get very far. Fnagaton 18:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Realistically, editors will use the sources they are familiar with. If the editors happen to be from the U.S., they will lean toward U.S. sources. Also, some topics may be covered mostly by U.S. based publications just because there are many U.S. publications. Naturally, U.S. based publications usually use traditional American units. That does not necessarily mean the topic is closely associated with the U.S. It does not mean that if editors undertook a survey of all coverage of the topic throughout the world in all languages, they would find the majority of sources use U.S. units to report about the topic. If the topic is not closely connected with the U.S, or a period and subject matter in another English-speaking country where traditional units were used, then metric units should be used first in the Misplaced Pages article.
As an example, being an American, I tend to read U.S. based newspapers. In today's online I see an article about the Tata Nano, described as the world's cheapest car, to be sold in India. Part of the descripton says "The four-door Nano is a little over 10 feet long and nearly 5 feet wide. It is powered by a 623cc two-cylinder engine at the back of the car. With 33 horsepower, the Nano is capable of 65 miles an hour."
So, I have a reliable source, and I could write an article about this car. But obviously, even though the source I read uses mostly American units to describe it, metric units would be more appropriate to use first since this topic has little to do with the U.S. In principle, I could try to survey all the publications in the world to get a sense of whether metric or American units are used most often, but this is a waste of time and an unnecessary burden to put on an editor. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Not really. When researching sources for a particular subject then sources can easily be found from any world wide source, it's not rocket science. UK cars for example use mpg and mph and a quick survey of the sources finds that when talking about British cars the units used are mpg and mph then looking at the British motor industry article it also shows mph first, which goes against what you're saying earlier about "SI units should be used first". So, are you going to edit feet and yards in the American Football article? Fnagaton 19:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I will research to find enough sources to write a good article or make a good edit. I will choose which measurement system to put first based on whether the topic has ties to an English-speaking country and a time period when that country used (or uses) traditional units. I will not look for sources solely for the purpose of finding out what measurement system most sources use to discuss the topic.
That relies on you making a judgement call to decide what units to use based solely on your personal opinion about what country the topic is related to, which is not as logical as doing the work to find out the majority of units used for that subject. Fnagaton 19:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
As for American football, as an undergraduate at the University of Southern California, I found I could scalp my tickets and keep myself well-supplied with pizza; I will not be editing American football articles. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
So you agree that your earlier statement "SI units should be used first in Misplaced Pages" is not realistic when considered for use on Misplaced Pages? Fnagaton 19:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I never made an unequivocal statement "SI units should be used first in Misplaced Pages". I wrote "An event covered by the U.S. mainstream media, but not especially related to the U.S., will probably be reported in mostly U.S. units, but SI units should be used first in Misplaced Pages.". I was saying that in a particular case of an event that is not especially related to the U.S., a Misplaced Pages article about that event should be use metric units first. (I neglected to mention that traditional units might apply if it concerned another English-speaking country that used traditional units at the time the event occured.) The metric units should be first even if most of the sources located by Misplaced Pages editors were published in the U.S. and therefore use U.S. units.

The fact that you quoted me out of context makes me wonder if you hate metric units, and have an unstated agenda to eliminate them entirely from Misplaced Pages. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not quote you out of context. Secondly I mentioned what you said multiple times above and at no point previously did you mention anything about it being misquoted until I showed exactly where your statement is incorrect. Lastly, I note your entirely inaccurate statement about “my agenda” above which has already been tackled by other editors below. Fnagaton 17:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually Gerry, the reverse of imperial and U.S. customary units is clearly true and has been a publicly stated agenda of some editors. I see the value of not eliminating any information. I also understand what you mean by your specific example above, and if you had all instances backed by easy to find citations and the article was stable, then I wouldn't demand that the source units be first. Also, I hope that spent some of that USC scalping money on some beer to wash down that pizza. It's odd to have one without the other; especially in a college town. —— MJCdetroit 16:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I see no evidence of an anti-metric agenda in Fnagaton's contributions. Fnagaton is very active in relation to the binary versus decimal prefixes for bits and bytes. You can see edit summaries like "Making consistent with relevant reliable sources" for a change from 'gibibyte' to 'gigabyte'. Lightmouse (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Gene Nygaard makes a crucial remark that the rest of us had missed, which is the need to distinguish between measured values (which can be converted between any units of the same dimension) and defined or designed ones (for which the units of the original design or definition play a special role, and would normally be preferred over other units for that reason). If added to the proposed text (which I've just placed between separator lines to make it easier to find), I feel that this would cover most of the concerns raised, like the 2-in gun or the 1000-ELU pyramid. What it does not cover is Fnagaton's concern about possible loss of accuracy. The best way I can think of for dealing with that is to include a warning that care is needed when converting from "source units" (whatever that means) to "preferred units" (the units agreed by local consensus). Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

New proposal
Which system to use

  • The system used in the best sources should come first
  • For US-related articles, US units can come first
  • For UK-related articles, either metric or imperial units can come first
  • Otherwise, metric values should come first

Lightmouse (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Refinement of new proposal by Lightmouse
Which system to use

  • The system used in the best sources should come first.
  • For US-related articles, US units can come first.
  • For UK-related articles, a preference towards metric units first; however imperial units can come first where metric units have not been adopted (such as miles), or where the subject pre-dates the adoption of metric units.
  • Otherwise, metric values should come first.

Pyrotec (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything negative or deceptive about Lightmouse, but why did you use US units can come first... Otherwise, metric values should come first? Shouldn't that line read, US unit should come first? Pyotec's revision just keeps us going in circles and is not what many of the UK editors want forced on them, which is what got this line of discussions started in the first place. — MJCdetroit 17:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no way to decide what the best sources are. Which is better, the The Times of London or The New York Times? Also, U.S. related articles should use the units usually used in the U.S. for that subject area. There are some subjects which use only metric units even in the U.S. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Two points:
  • I fail to understand the need to mention either "US" or "UK" explicitly here. This is a global encyclopaedia and should have globally applicable guidelines.
  • I am uncertain what is meant by a "metric" unit.
Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
How about this version which goes some way to solve the problem of deciding what the best sources are...

Refinement of the refinement :) of the new proposal by Lightmouse
Which system to use

  • The system used in the majority of sources should come first.
  • For US-related articles, US units can come first.
  • For UK-related articles, a preference towards metric units first; however imperial units can come first where metric units have not been adopted (such as miles), or where the subject pre-dates the adoption of metric units.
  • Otherwise, metric values should come first.

Fnagaton 18:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it necessary to explain it all again? Feet, inches, pounds, etc were the units used in Great Britain, they are known as Imperial Units and US units. Metres (or Meters) Kilograms, litres (or Liters) are known as metric or SI units.Pyrotec (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am afraid it is necessary to explain terms that are used in the guidelines. I don't agree that "metric" is synonymous with "SI". There are many units that I consider to be metric (eg hectare, litre) that are not part of SI, and there are SI units that have no obvious connection with the metre. Is the mole a metric unit? You also appear to be saying that "imperial" and "US" are synonymous in this context. I doubt it. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
We agree with each other on the fine detail. See my discussion about the cgs (centimetre, gramme, second) System and the MKS (metre, kilogram, second) System above. I'm just concerned that some editors do not appear to know what Imperial Units and US units are; and that these differ from metric and SI units. Yes, I'm aware that the litre is an non-prefered unit; it happens to be a useful one, it is far easier to order beer in litre or half-litre glasses than to request one-thousandth of a cubic metre of beer in a glass. I don't like hectares either, I prefer acres.Pyrotec (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Pyrotec (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The need for global guide lines is just another smokescreen, wikipedia recognises that there are national differences in spellings, e.g. liter and litre, etc. SI units have a long history of use in science but not in engineering or everyday use; and in many cases there is no legal requirement to use metric units. In many cases there is no exact conversion between units, so why the intolerance of history and legal units of multiple units of measurement.Pyrotec (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If there is a good historical reason to use (say) gallons or ounces, local editors will quickly arrive at a decision to use such units, by a process of consensus. If no such reason is apparent, there is a good reason *not* to use them on the grounds that they are ambiguous. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
To MJCDetroit, I used the terms 'can' because sometimes Americans would regard US units as wrong in a particular application (as Gerry says). If you want to change it to 'should' that is fine by me, it will get covered by the 'best sources' bullet. For the vast majority of editors, this section is just about miles and gallons versus kilometres and litres. Hopefully, we can proceed with the following:
Which system to use
  • The system used in the majority of sources should come first.
  • For US-related articles, US units can come first
  • For UK-related articles, metric or imperial units can come first
  • Otherwise, metric values should come first.
Lightmouse (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above is OK with me. To Pyrotec, I see it as a problem of trying to mandate one system at the expense of coveying the information found in reliable sources on a particular subject. For example when editing this whole page it says "This page is 486 kilobytes long", I checked and this means 498,877 bytes, 498877/1024 ~= 487.1 which is close enough to 486K to demonstrate my point that Misplaced Pages uses kilobyte in the binary power of two sense and not in the base 10 sense. Now a few years ago a "standards organisation" called the IEC tried to introduce kibibytes, depsite it being "a standard" hardly anyone uses the term (Google shows 43,300 for kibibyte and 1,270,000 for kilobyte). This is because the industry, those who know what they're talking about and who write the material we use for reliable sources, know that using a neologism is not preferable. Also there is another standards organisation calle dthe JEDEC who define kilobyte in the binary power of two sense. The standards organisations cannot agree. :) For other topics such as ammunition during WWI&II the meaning is in the sizes of the rounds expressed in inches not mm/cm etc. For me it's always been about consistency with the reliable sources. Fnagaton 18:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I approve of "consistency with the reliable sources", but an awful lot of weight is carried by that one little word "reliable". Amongst other things, it needs to be unambiguous. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
When I say "reliable sources" I mean WP:Reliable sources. Not what I personally consider reliable, my Dad is a reliable source to me but may not be to the man in the street, but rather those sources that meet the criteria for WP:Verifiability. Fnagaton 19:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is the box tickers, wiki-lawers and those with an intolerance of ambiguity. If the MoS says metric or (SI units) first, then 2" is going to get changed to 50 mm some of the time, 51 mm elsewhere and 50.8 mm in other places. You can say good buy to historical accuracy. I'm in favour of ambiguity. If I read a oldish UK government document about, e.g. WW I or WW II which predated metrification, it will be in Imperial units; but if I read a less-authoritative book written in the last 20 years it will use metric units. There is uncertainty, but it is not due to uncertainty of what happened in that historical time period; it is entirely due to a change in the measurement units and the lack of direct equivalence. If the Mos says metric first then these 2" rockets, will be either 50 mm, 51 mm, or 50.8 mm rockets - which is historically inaccurate. Pyrotec (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with you with regards to the box tickers and wiki-lawers and I've seen it happen several time during my editing time here where someone with a bee in their bonnet about a particular system will go on an edit rampage while ignoring the consensus of many editors. That's why I debate on the side of "The system used in the majority of sources should come first.". :) One day perhaps the majority of sources will change and new units will be used in articles, but I really do think that it's best to leave that choice to those who write the reliable sources and not up to a few people making policy on Misplaced Pages. Fnagaton 19:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I can understand your argument, but I think the historically accurate units should be used. For example if we could agree that 10 horsepower and 7.45 kilowatts were identical, I would expect to read articles about 1930s 10 HP Austin cars, not 1930s 7.45 kilowatt Austin cars; I don't really care whether the sources agree that they were 7.45 kilowatt cars; the UK did not make 7.45 watt cars prior to the adoption of metric and/or SI units.19:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrotec (talk • contribs)
I think most reliable sources about 1930s cars, even modern sources written last week, will most likely contain HP not kilowatts as their primary units. So in that case your use of historical units is safe for a good while yet it seems. I can think of one subject off the top of my head where use of historical units have changed a little and that would be the article on the Great Pyramid of Giza. The units to begin with were just cubits since most sources referenced used those units, however later on more sources came to light so that now cubits are used first but the article also uses the modern units later on. Fnagaton 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Lightmouse, if you change your last revision from can to should as discussed, I'll get on board.
Fnag, forgive me for asking but what's a box ticker? — MJCdetroit 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I've generally thought of a box ticker as someone who has a checklist of changes they apply to each page robot fashion without thinking about whether those changes are needed. Fnagaton 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) It is generally not feasible to read all the reliable sources on a topic. If we only consider the majority of the sources actually cited in the article, that is determined by which sources the editors who worked on the article have easy access to, and is therefore biased by which country those editors reside in. I believe the consensus of the editors about whether the article is related to an English-speaking country during a time when that country used, or uses, traditional units for the topic at hand is a better guide than what units are used in a majority of the sources. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is more logical to check reliable sources than it is to go around in circles trying to get personal opinion to agree on what country a topic comes from. Fnagaton 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to accept the Fnagaton and the Lightmouse, MoS, which units to use, suggested changes; they allow the use of Cubits in the Great Pyramid of Giza article with the metric/SI equivalent in brackets afterwards; and the use of horsepower, etc, etc. In contrast, the suggestion at the top of this section would force the use of metric/SI units (with cubits in brackets). You also have a definition of a box-ticker that I can sign up to.Pyrotec (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the first bullet of the latest version by Pyrotec (best sources). Quantity should never win over quality. I dislike the continued focus on "US" vs "UK" (This is meant to be a global encyclopaedia). Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not spell out the principles first? It's OK then to include US and UK as examples, but they should not carry the same weight as the principles themselves. Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The thing is "best sources" relies on personal opinion much more than "majority of reliable sources" or just "majority of sources". Someone could reference a source that uses a choice of units that does not have anywhere like the consensus found in the real world, then claim that source "is the best source" and then use that to push what they want. By using the term "majority" instead of "best" the choice as to what the majority/consensus is in the real world is less to do with personal opinion. Also having "the best" isn't really that important since articles should be using the WP:Reliable Source and WP:Verifiability anyway. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that "the best" is a bit fudgy-smudgy (which is what we are trying to reduce in the guideline) and open to too much broad interpretation whereas "majority" is more concrete which would hopefully lead to less edit warring/"Wiki-lawyering". Fnagaton 10:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with 'reliable sources' instead of 'best sources'. But not with 'majority of sources'. Thunderbird2 (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, how about "The system used in reliable sources should come first."? Fnagaton 13:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet another

Which system to use
The metric system in its most recent form (SI) is preferred on Misplaced Pages.
Information on historic subjects or articles geopolitically bound to a different system of measurement should also give data using applicable units, especially if they have been used in a defining sense. This applies contemporarily to many fields regarding the United States and some regarding the United Kingdom. If reliable, recent sources use “jargon units”, these should be acknowledged but not endorsed blindly.

Wording needs improvement, though. Christoph Päper (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a no from me as it doesn't solve the problems in the section above. Fnagaton 13:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Chrissov's proposal does solve some of the problems, but I agree not all of them. Fnagaton has argued that reliable sources are important. I agree with him, so let's start with a reliable source on units of measurement. Such a source is the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, the organisation responsible for maintaining the International System of Units.
The wording needs improvement (acknowledged anyway by Crissov), but it starts with a sound general principle: that we should have a good reason before departing from an international standard. It then goes on to give examples of valid exceptions to the general principle. No doubt there are other exceptions too, but this is a good starting point. At least the structure is right. Thunderbird2 (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think consistency with reliable sources should trump whatever any standards body says. Take for example most of the articles on couputers here, they use kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte. Why? Well those terms are the most often used terms in the relaiable osurces used for most of the articles. Now then we have one standards body (IEC) trying to push the use of kibibyte, mebibyte etc and hardly anyone uses uses those terms. The same goes for the IEC trying to promote different symbols for AND/NOT/NOR gates, hardly any engineer uses those symbols. Then we also have another international standards body (JEDEC) that uses kilobyte, megabyte etc. So I think it needs to be made clear that the units to use first in an article have to be consistent with the sources used. Fnagaton 13:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Two points (deja vu!), one general and one specific:
  • general point: Standards bodies are (mostly) reliable sources.
  • specific point (aimed at the megabyte): A source that prefers an ambiguous unit to an unambiguous one is not a reliable one, whether it is a standards body or not. Let us learn from the mistakes of the computer industry.
Thunderbird2 (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, kilobyte/megabyte/gigabyte are not ambiguous when used in the context of computers. A standards body that is not followed by the majority of the industry is not a relevant reliable source of unit styles to be used in an article for that industry. The consensus in the real world as shown by the majority of relevant reliable sources for the article show the units to be used. Anything else is just pushing PoV and sacrificing accuracy. Fnagaton 16:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
A kilobyte used to be 2 raised to the power 10, e.g. 1024 bytes. That seems pretty unambiguous to me. A megabyte should be 1024 bytes (2 raised to the power 20); and a gigabyte, 1024 megabytes (2 raised to the power 30).Pyrotec (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Kilobyte/megabyte/gigabyte are ambiguous, because they have been used as powers of 2 when discussing memory chips, but as powers of 10 when discussing disk drives. So the meaning must be derived from context. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Even worse, a megabyte is sometimes used to mean 1024,000 bytes (as in 1.44 MB floppy disk). The gigabyte article describes the gory details. Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
No they're not ambiguous since the context and the sources define how many bytes there are, I'm never confused about how many bytes there are in something. Just because some people get confused (or see the chance for a lawsuit) when manufacturers use the same name for something on their drives doesn't mean the use of those units in reference to memory sizes is wrong or non-standard. Misplaced Pages is descriptive not prescriptive, that means articles should reflect the use of units that are used in sources relevant to the article being written and the use of those units in language. Even if someone is confused that still does not mean discarding the units by used the sources and using units from one standards body, so if an article has sources that use kilobyte, inches, cubits, miles or yards then the first units in the article should always be those units first with converted units in brackets afterwards. Fnagaton 20:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this section was trying to say that metric/SI units is prefered; it then allowed Imperial units and Jargon units. The problem is jargon, it is a poor label. If Jargon is removed from the Chrissov definition, then it appears to meet our needs. The good unit megabyte appears to be debased to mere jargon as it can mean 1,024 kilobytes or 1,000 kilobytes depending on what the context is.Pyrotec (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Pyrotec. Thunderbird2 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Even with that change I now prefer the existing version on the project page because it addresses the issue in much clearer terms "If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second". This of course effectively means "use the units used in the sources for the article" and in most cases for the example articles I gave above this means using cubit/kilobyte/megabyte/gigabyte/yard/feet/inches. Consistency with relevant reliable sources is the priority here, not pushing one particular system. All this waffle about "geopolitically bound" is far too loose (fudgy smudgy), OK the existing guideline is also loose but a least it tackles the wider picture. Fnagaton 20:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I am disappointed that this debate is beginning to look like it will only end if it can solve the holy war over prefixes. I have no intention of becoming involved in that. Therefore I withdraw all my proposals. Lightmouse (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought that all were close to agreement just before the 'yet another' subsection proposal; which gets definite NO from me. The prefix thing...I'm with Lightmouse. I'm fine with status quo anyway. — MJCdetroit 20:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Fnagaton wrote "consistency with relevant reliable sources is the priority here". I disagree, consistency with relevant reliable sources is only a possible means to an end. The goal should be to make the encyclopedia understandable to as many people as possible. The default way to do that is to use SI units. There are some topics where it will be more understandable if traditional units currently or formerly used by some English-speaking country are used first. There are some topics where it will be more understandable if some non-SI metric unit is used (for example, blood pressure measured in millimeters of mercury). The units used in reliable sources may give a clue as to what units will be most understandable, but they are not a perfect guide, because the anticipated readership of the reliable sources may be different from the readership of Misplaced Pages.
The history of measurement is full of instances of certain occupations developing their own units with total disregard and/or ignorance that they are measuring the same quantiy, and that using a single unit for the quantity would reduce the barrier to outsiders who wish to understand the field. The metric system was developed to solve that proplem. I say, DAMN THE BARRIERS, AND THOSE WHO ERECT THEM.--Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the real world consensus for binary prefixes your point of view is in the minority (about 0.5% based on a quick Google test, I'll be generous and say your point of view has 1% support). Consistency with relevant reliable sources is the priority here because it makes Misplaced Pages understandable to as many people as possible by using the same units they will read in the reliable sources cited in each article. What you propose actually introduces confusion into articles and makes it harder for someone to follow. Fnagaton 22:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, instead of all the "historic geopolitically bound" phrasing which is open to interpretation, personal opinion, wiki-lawyering and box-checkers how about using the less is more approach?
  • In articles use the units employed in the sources on that topic.
  • If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second in brackets.
With "source value" being defined as the unit style being used in the sources for that particular subject. For example it's easy to see that cubits are used in articles about the Pyramids, yards are used in articles about American Football, mpg for British cars, inches for World War artillery and kilobytes for nearly all computer related articles. This way all mention of SI is removed to avoid any bias towards one system because mandating one system cannot solve all problems. It allows the consensus from the real world to act as a template for the articles which also follows the Misplaced Pages is descriptive not prescriptive paradigm. Fnagaton 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The only possible justification for using cubits is if an object, such as a pyriamid, was designed to be a round number of cubits (or if some archeologists argue that is the case). (Or if not a round number, then some number that has some special significance.) If simply describing the size of the pyramids, SI should come first with a conversion to traditional U.S. units in parenthesis. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence or verifiable sources that the pyramid were designed and built using SI (or metric) units; and why should they have US units in parenthesis afterwards, if the archaelogist was British he would use metric and Imperial units?. Pyrotec (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The units used in designing and building any structure should not be used in a Misplaced Pages article unless those units are familiar to modern readers, or unless there is some special significance to the numerical values of the original design. (To make up an example, a certain ancient people thought the world was 1,275 years old and designed a structure 1,275 cubits square.)
As for which customary units should be used for a pyramid article, I would think most of the units would be lengths or areas; U.S. and U.K units are practically the same for length and area. If any masses were mentioned, then it would be necessary to consider the source units. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not up to you to decide what units to replace reliable source units with. Fnagaton 22:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I do have the perogative of changing units of measure, if I have a good reason. An example of a good reason would be that a reliable source was aimed at a specialist audience, and different units would be more suitable for a general audience. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Gerry Ashton, there you go again with your "SI units should be used first"/"SI should come first" talk, I refer you to my argument above where I show why that argument is incorrect, you know the bit where you then deliberately misrepresent me. Also the "special significance" thing is too open to interpretation. Fnagaton 21:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
My overall impression of your approach is that you value adhering to the units used in original sources over the goal of making the articles easy for a modern, worldwide readership to understand. I don't care about the units used in the sources per se, I only consider them to be one possible gauge of what units will be easiest to understand. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Then you are wrong for the reasons I have already given above. I also demand that you stop trying to second guess my intentions and retract your statements to that effect. Fnagaton 22:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Fnagaton: Do you consider understandability by a worldwide modern readership to be the most important goal of this "Manual of style (dates and numbers)"? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course I promote "understandability" but what you propose does not help "understandability", as already explained by what I previously wrote. Fnagaton 22:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't accept that the use of mm of Hg to measure blood pressure was instances of certain occupations developing their own units with total disregard and/or ignorance that they are measuring the same quantity. Atmospheric pressure was measured using columns of mercury approximately 1 metre high (or 39 inches), or columns of water approximately 30 feet high - it does not matter whether the unit of measurement was cubits, feet or metres, the technology works. They were called monometers; and they are (were) used to measure low pressure systems, such as blood pressure, domestic gas pressure, fume extraction systems, etc. It was only concerns over the toxicity of mercury that we stopped using simple manometers containing mercury. We now use pressure transducers, that are probably calibrated in pascals; but who uses pascals for blood pressure measurements and why should we change? Pyrotec (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Because otherwise you are asking the poor old lay reader to convert between psi, mmHg, mbar, atm, hPa, dBA and god knows what else. Use of a single unit system (whichever it may be) has the benefit of making it clear to the reader that tyre pressure, blood pressure, atmospheric pressure and sound pressure are all different manifestations of exactly the same phenomenon, and permitting comparison between their magnitudes without a degree in physics. Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Umm no? The article writer uses the source unit first and gives a good conversion in brackets to a more common system. In your scenario the use of a single system means the reader will read "kph" in an article then read the sources which are all in "mph" and then sit there wondering what this "mph" is. In what I propose the article will have (something like) "mph (kph)" which makes it obvious what the units are used in the sources and also helps them understand what "mph" is when they read those sources. It educates the reader and doesn't confuse them by leaving out relevant information. Fnagaton 22:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Medical professionals began measuring pressure in mm of Hg before SI was created in 1960, so there was little guidance about what units pressure should be measured in; I don't fault the medical professionals for their choice. As to "why should we change?", we now have the case where students learn about pressure measurements in school, and are told about their blood pressure in mm of Hg, and can't relate the two. Many U.S. firefighters are now trained as EMTs or paramedics; they have to use PSI when they operate a pumper or fill their oxygen tanks, but mm of Hg when they treat patients. This leads to having to learn more vocabulary, and difficulty in understanding how the different pressures relate to each other. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This argument is all talk and no substance. My blood pressure target (I think) is 120 over 80 measured in units of mm of Hg; if it is significantly different from that action may be needed. Why should I wish to compare my blood pressure, 120/80, against the recommended pressure of air in my car tyres, which happens to be 30 psi. I suspect that I will die if my blood pressure reaches 30 psi, but it is not necessary for me to posses a Degree in Physics to appreciate that. Again, in the UK medical oxygen is supplied in medical cylinders with outlet pressures of 137 bar, or 4 bar if it has a built-in pressure regulator. I know that atmospheric pressure is approximately 14.5 psi, so I can guestimate what 137 and 4 bar are, it is even better if the article says: medical oxygen cylinders are either "137 bar (approx. 2,000 psi) or 4 bar (approx 60 psi)". In the UK our gas cylinders are dual labelled, e.g. 137 bar (2,000 psi) outlet pressure. The common SI unit is pascal (Pa), so cylinders are 13.7 MPa, car tyres are 0.2 MPa and blood pressure is quite small and is below scale when measured in MPa; but how does that improve my ability to be a US fireman (which I'm not)? Again, the cubit is approximately 18 inches or 45 cm. If I write that a "pyramid had (say) a square base 1,000 cubits (18,000 inches, or 1,500 feet) (45,000 cm or 450 m) long", how does that prevent a US fireman from running a fire hose from one end to the other. I suspect that the US fireman is not a dumb (US term) as you are trying to make him.Pyrotec (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Our role should be to present information in such a way that is most likely to be understood by WP readers, some of whom probably are US firemen. Use of obscure units does more to hinder than help, and I for one cannot make head or tail of the comparisons made by Pyrotec. Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Those units are not obscure. Using the units found in the sources relevant to a subject helps more than using some other units and adding confusion to the issue. Fnagaton 13:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Fnagaton got in first; and he used the words that I initially wrote. So I'll expand on his words. I'm willing to accept that a cubit is an obscure unit, but are you serious describing, feet, inches, cm, m, psi, bar and Pa as obscure units. I went onto the NY City fire Department's web site to see if there was any supporting evidence: I found pounds, I found feet and I found psi. What I could not find is bar and MPa, these happened to be metric and/or SI units. I presume that you are an American citizen and that you do not know what bar and MPa are; can you confirm that? (Note: atmospheric pressure is approximately one bar; and 10 bars are equivalent to one MPa; and in the UK and Europe gas cylinders are labelled in bars and psi). Actually it proves my point if I use SI pressure units, the USA does not understand them. I assume that you are in favour of US units and Imperial units?Pyrotec (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt here, but yes, to most of the world feet, inches and psi are obscure units. So even if reliable sources use them, conversions should be required. −Woodstone (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying "don't convert". I am saying conversions should not be the primary or only units in an article. Fnagaton 14:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to contribute. The proposal above is discussing the convention of units: it is that US units be used in US articles, metric and Imperial units being used in UK articles and metric elsewhere, with alternative units in brackets afterward; an alternative is that SI units be given preference. Imperial/US units were in use for nearly 75% of the 20th century and the USA and Britain (in part) still uses them. There are also objections to use of measurements such as blood pressure in units of mm of Mercury. All I want is a simple answer from Thunderbird2 - what units are obscure; are you answering for that user?Pyrotec (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
My nationality is irrelevant. The issue of which units I personally happen to find obscure is also irrelevant. What is relevant is whether we can agree on the thesis (outside of the present context of US firemen) Use of obscure units does more to hinder than help. I sincerely hope so. I should explain that by "obscure" I mean units that do no not make for clarity; a non-obscure unit is one that helps the reader understand what is written in the article and how it is related to information in other articles. Thunderbird2 (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Not when it means mandating one system to use regardless of the system used by the real world for a particular subject. Insisting on units that are not used by the majority of relevant reliable sources by definition makes those units obscure. For example the demonstration I gave below shows the units you prefer have such a lack of consensus that only 0.5% of the world follows your point of view. Fnagaton 14:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think that use of units used by the majority of reliable sources might help the reader understand how the article relates to other articles? Thunderbird2 (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I do think that use of units used by the majority of relevant reliable sources helps the reader understand how the article relates to other articles. It is you who is proposing using a system that mandates units which are not used by the majority of relevant reliable sources, as shown by the figures listed below. Fnagaton 14:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It is worth coping the following -

Because otherwise you are asking the poor old lay reader to convert between psi, mmHg, mbar, atm, hPa, dBA and god knows what else. Use of a single unit system (whichever it may be) has the benefit of making it clear to the reader that tyre pressure, blood pressure, atmospheric pressure and sound pressure are all different manifestations of exactly the same phenomenon, and permitting comparison between their magnitudes without a degree in physics. Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pyrotec (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Pyrotec's edit summary says "copied quotation from Thrunderbird2 in respsonse to bad faith posting by Thunderbird2)". I do not wish to take part in a discussion in which good faith is not assumed. Good day. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Blood pressure is measured in units of mm of mercury (mm of Hg), a metric non-SI unit. Tyre (or tire) pressures are measured in psi (or kPa), gas cylinder pressures are measured in bar, MPa or psi. These are all reliable non-obscure units. If Thunderbird2 agrees to this and Gerry Ashton does not insist on the use of conversions that Thunderbird2 does not understand, then we have a workable system.Pyrotec (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(unendent) I don't need to know your nationality, but I wish you to state which units in my discussion are obscure. Pounds, feet, inches, psi, mm, cm and meters (metres) are all legal US and UK units of measurement. Pascal and MPa are SI units; bars are units of pressure used on gas cylinders in Europe and the UK. I went onto the NIST web site for pressure calibration | NIST Pressure calibration and I found MPa units. The Proposal above require the use of US units, SI units and Imperial units, in certain orders of preference. I used SI units (Pa, cm, m); non-prefered SI units (bar); I used US and Imperial units (feet, inches) and I used Cubit. I directly related gas cylinder pressures to tyre pressures to blood pressure using SI units, with the common units in brackets, because another contributor considers that it adds clarity to readers. Please state which units are obscure, or withdraw your statement. Pyrotec (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) What's this prefix war, I'm not fighting a prefix war; I'm fighting a blanket imposition of metric/SI units. Fnagton's latest posting is acceptable to me, and it does not mention prefixes. Pyrotec (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's stay off prefixes. I can live with Fnagaton's first bullet if amended to include the adjective 'reliable'. I disagree with the second though, because it would result in flipping backwards and forwards between units in the same article, which would be very confusing for the reader. With rare exceptions, an article should stick to a unit once adopted. Thunderbird2 (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Articles should be internally consistent so there wouldn't be any flipping around within an article if the consensus from reliable sources was used instead. So...
  • In articles use the units employed in the reliable sources on that topic.
  • If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second in brackets.
With "source value" being defined as the unit style being used as shown by the consensus from reliable sources for that particular subject. This mention of consensus is intended to avoid situations where you have a large body of reliable sources using one style and a small body of reliable sources using another style. Fnagaton 21:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is an example that shows exactly how much consensus the IEC standard has. A while ago on Misplaced Pages we had one user edit hundreds of articles to change from kilobyte to kibibyte (and all of the other units as well). Since this action would alter any attempt to use Google to judge real world consensus on this issue the searches will be conducted with "-wikipedia".
Historical use search terms Results
kilobyte -wikipedia 1,940,000
megabyte -wikipedia 6,190,000
gigabyte -wikipedia 3,640,000
Total: 11,770,000
IEC Search terms Results
kibibyte -wikipedia 28,800
mebibyte -wikipedia 17,100
gibibyte -wikipedia 19,000
Total: 64,900
Consensus for historical use: 99.449%
This shows the IEC standard does not have consensus, so I don't think the IEC can be seen as authoritative in this regard.
So Gerry if you're not familiar with the term "neologism" I suggest you look it up because only using unit terms which have so little support in the real world does not make something easier to understand. What does make an article easier to understand is if the article is consistent with its sources. That's why I say use the unit terms that appear in the majority of reliable sources relevant to an article should be used first. Fnagaton 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This argument is about kibibyte irrelevant. I do not argue that every suggestion from every voluntary standards body be adopted immediately; it is entirely appropriate to wait a while and see if it catches on in the publications relevant in the field. My objection is to the phrase "majority of the reliable sources". If I were describing the IBM 709 computer, I might prefer to give the size of the memory in bytes, even though that word was not in general use back in the day of vacuum tube computers; they used to talk a about "words", and you had to know which computer you were talking about, because every computer model had a different word size.
The problem is that "majority of the reliable sources" is unworkable. Which sources? The ones cited in the article? The ones that are about the specific topic of the article (the IBM 709 computer)? The ones in the general field of the article (computer hardware)? The problem is, the list of cited articles keeps changing; shall we change the units in the article every time the majority (in the cited articles) changes? A single editor probably does not have access to all the cited sources anyway, so it could take a few weeks of wrangling on the talk page just to figure out which units the majority of the cited sources use.
If you want us to use the majority of the sources that exist on the specific topic, or in the general field, that is not feasible. It is to expensive and time-consuming to obtain and read every source on a specific topic, and reading every source in a general field is flatly impossible.
An additional problem is that when writing about a historical subject, the majority of the reliable sources might be contemporary with the subject, and use obsolete units. It might be more appropriate to use units familiar to the modern reader first. Remember, we are writing an encyclopedia, not an annotated bibliography.
I noticed that when you reverted the mass change from kikibyte to kilobyte (a reversion which I support), how did you decide what the majority of the sources was when certain articles failed to cite any reliable sources?
By the way, conducting surveys and judging the usage of words with Google searches is considered original research. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You're wrong because the argument about kibibyte is relevant since you want to impose SI units on every article, therefore this touches on binary prefixes. You are also wrong because the majority of reliable sources is much more feasible than your proposal of deciding what the personal opinion is of each editor about where the article comes from or your proposal of imposing whatever units you decide. You are also wrong because Misplaced Pages is descriptive not prescriptive, which means you don't get to decide what units to impose. Also what you wrote about the research is irrelevant since it demonstrates a perfectly valid point about the lack of use of those prefixes in the real world, it does not mean you can just dismiss it with "it is original research". Fnagaton 17:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You say it is feasible to determine what the "majority of the reliable sources" is. Can you explain in detail how this is to be done? Until you have presented a feasible protocol to determine the majority of reliable sources, I deem that your proposal does not exist. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It is easy and common sense. Take an article, take the Reliable Sources (those sources cited in the article which meet the guideline about reliable sources), inspect the sources, more often that not it is obvious what system is used when talking about the article. If it isn't obvious then the editor is unsure and should leave the job to someone who has more knowledge on the subject. Quite frankly if someone is incapable of even that simple amount of due diligence they shouldn't be making technical changes to articles in the first place. Fnagaton 17:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, lets suppose I come across an article which uses units inconsistently, and I want to clean it up (we all agree that the first-used unit should be consistent throughout an article, except within quotes). So I find there are three sources listed. They are books, I don't own any of them, and they don't seem like the kind of books that would be available at my local library. Now as it happens, I have years of experience in the topic of the article, and I have lots of books and journals on closely related topics, and they are all consistent with each other about which units to use. But I can't clean up the article, because I can't inspect the cited books. So I should request the books on inter-library loan and wait 3 months to clean up the article, even though it's perfectly obvious what units to use. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Then you leave the article for someone who is better equipped to do the job and you might consider putting something on the talk page asking someone else to help tidy it by, for example, contacting the editors who cited the books in the first place. By the way, when you say it's perfectly obvious what units to use you have previously stated that you would change all units to SI, so what you think is obvious isn't necessarily correct. Fnagaton 18:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I was right. Your proposal is unworkable. This is not to say the units used in the field that covers the topic shouldn't be considered, I'm just saying that "majority" implies counting, and counting is not feasible. By the way, your statement "you have previously stated that you would change all units to SI" is not true. I'm done discussing the concept of counting sources to decide which units to list first, and will revert any introduction of that concept into the MOS. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Well you're wrong because it is feasible to find out the majority and I gave a very good example of how to do that above. If you're not capable of making a simple judgement about what a majority is then you're not going to be capable of making technical changes to an article. Also your denial is contrary to what you actually wrote, for example "SI units should be used first in Misplaced Pages" at 17:26, 10 January 2008 and "SI should come first with a conversion to traditional U.S. units in parenthesis" at 21:23, 12 January 2008. By the way if you deliberately revert changes to the MOS that have consensus you will get into trouble. Fnagaton 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fnagaston seems to think "SI units should be used first in Misplaced Pages" is a fair representation of what I actually wrote, "An event covered by the U.S. mainstream media, but not especially related to the U.S., will probably be reported in mostly U.S. units, but SI units should be used first in Misplaced Pages." Fnagaston also seems to think "SI should come first with a conversion to traditional U.S. units in parenthesis" is a fair representation of "If simply describing the size of the pyramids, SI should come first with a conversion to traditional U.S. units in parenthesis."

My actual view is that SI units should come first in the absence of a good reason to do otherwise, and the current version of the MOS (dates and numbers) is better than anything I've seen in this thread. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point about what you wrote. Fnagaton 20:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, the first bit about SI units coming first is clear in both paragraphs. The second paragraph contains a caveate: in the absence of a good reason to do otherwise, could you expand, or review, what you mean by that? Would e.g. the availability non-SI metric in preference to US/Imperial units fall in the scope of good reasons?Pyrotec (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll list three good reasons to list a non-SI unit first (any one of these reasons would be sufficent). This is not meant to list all possible good reasons.
  • The article is strongly connected to an English-speaking country, is about a time period when traditional units were or are used in that country, and the topic of the article was (or is) usually discussed in traditional units during the time period in question.
  • The article is about a topic where non-SI metric units are generally used (for example, blood pressure is usually given in mm of Hg).
  • The article is about a structure that was designed in round traditional units, or round metric units that are non-SI. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
That’s matching the spirit of what I wrote, it’s just more verbose. I think it’s good practice to briefly provide the reasoning, followed by practical conclusions – guidelines. My last sentence about jargon was aimed at torr, ångström, lightyear, M etc.pp. I’m still unsure how to phrase it.
Which system to use
Misplaced Pages, being an international project, prefers the International System of Units (SI), which is the most recent form of the metric system.
Information on historic subjects or articles geopolitically bound to a different system of measurement may also provide data in applicable units, especially if these are essential to definition or design. Contemporarily, this applies to many fields regarding the United States and some regarding the United Kingdom.
This Manual of style includes a list of topics, where consensus found that most reliable, recent sources use “jargon units” which should be given preference over SI equivalents.
Unlike Fnagaton I don’t see anything wrong with defaulting to SI in general. He seems to think his pet peeve, i.e. binary prefixes, would be affected and turned a large part of the long discussion above to that issue. I didn’t have that in mind explicitly, but would file it under jargon, which needs separate discussion and (preferably enWP-wide) consensus compatible to the reasoning outlined. Christoph Päper (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that proposal and what Gerry Ashton wrote is that it is as "fudgy smudgy" as the current one and doesn't clear clear enough guideance. The problem with defaulting to SI is that it ignores what the real world consensus is for a particular topic and then box tickers come along and make changes that are not needed to articles. Fnagaton 11:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that not all style issues can be decided in a mechanical fashion; sometimes the "editors" (who are really authors) have to make a judgement call. In those cases where individual editors made an odd choice for units, or went on a campaign to promote their favorite unusual unit, the problem was corrected quickly enough (in one case, Fnagaton participated in the cleanup). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Using due diligence when editing articles and being able to read references, what I promote, is the opposite of acting in a mechanical fashion. Forcing SI to be used on all articles, that is deciding in a mechanical fashion, like a robot box ticker. Fnagaton 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Metric to Imperial conversion

10:16::25:40 The second ratio just has the numerator and denominator multiplied by 2.5. As human beings, in general, have 10 fingers, it is preferable to leave the former ratio. A better integer approximation is 37km ≈ 23 mi. The error there is on the order of 0.04% as opposed to 0.58%, but I believe it is too unwieldy for regular quick estimation. -- Avi (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Using 33 km ≈ 20.5 mi has an error of around 0.03% amd using 35km ≈ 21.75 mi has an error of around 0.01%, but let's not get crazy here -- Avi (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Using a multiple of 10 in one unit, but not the other, suggests a bias to one of them. If one has 10 miles, it is not clear what the accuracy is. It may mean 1·10, in which case the best conversion would be 20 km. So it's better to use an example that unambiguously has the same number of significant digits. I have changed to the best approximation in 2 digits each. The numbers in these example do not have to be intuitive, since it's the principle that is being explained. −Woodstone (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. -- Avi (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm with you, Woodstone. Give an example that is not meaninglessly keyed to numbers that are under discussion in a different way. Since the number 10 is at the core of the topic, avoid its irrelevant intrusion in the example. A subtle and judicious change; very reader-friendly!
– Noetica Talk 00:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I must be missing something. What is this discussion about, anyway? What does it have to do with WP:MOSNUM in particular? I can see no connection whatsoever. Is this tied into some earlier discussion? Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Choice of numbers for use in our MoS examples

I guess I figured it out by looking at the edit-warring between Crissov and Avraham (Avi) about those numbers as used in an example in the Which system to use subheading under the Units of measurement header, it was just a very unexplanatory subject header here with no explanation of where those numbers were coming from in the original posting here.

It has nothing to do with the rule being illustrated there. It has no more relevance there than it does up above in the very next subsection, Conversions. No, take that back. It is a change that needs to be made in the "Conversions" subsection, with its own examples. Changing it in the "Which system to use" subsection instead borders on the frivolous.

I agree with that ultimate change, that 23 mi = 37 km are better than either the 10 mi = 16 km or the 25 mi = 40 km used before. But it doesn't really improve that section at all. It does nothing whatsoever to clarify the points being made there. It only really has any relevance with respect to totally unrelated rules as to the precision of measurements, a topic relevant to the "Conversions" subsection but unrelated to the "Which system to use" subsection. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It indeed doesn’t improve the section much but at least a little, that’s why I marked my initial edit as minor and didn’t expect reversion (or discussion). Christoph Päper (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

False primacy of non-metric in space articles. Use of 'yards' may indicate meters in source data

Some of the space articles use 'yards' as primary values e.g. Spirit rover. This is almost certainly because the primary data is in meters. Some primary feet values (such as '33 feet') look like conversions from metric primary data. A check of the NASA websites indicate that NASA does use metric for primary data in many cases. It seems that press releases are where the metric source data is lost or falsely relegated to parenthetical form. There are lots of different projects on Misplaced Pages that could be the place to raise this. Does anybody have any suggestions? Lightmouse (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There's little excuse for space articles to use metrics alone (see MOSNUM), and to check the primary sources thoroughly. Unsure what should be done. Have you put a not on the talk page of Spirit rover? Tony (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes NASA publishes stuff for public viewing in customary units, but its researchers/astronomers most definitely submitted their report to the PR department in SI units. Considering that there is not a source for that passage in that section of the article, I don't think anyone would be upset if you were bold and switched the order. —MJCdetroit (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not a question of style but of accuracy and should be brought up on the article talk page, or, better, find the sources and enter correct data. Here's one , for starters, that gives a different distance traveled to Bonneville crater, and that article has a different value for the crater diameter from the Spirit Rover article.--agr (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I have now put a comment on the talk page of the article. As ArnoldReinhold says, there is a loss of accuracy. I raised it here because it is a problem that is not unique to that article. It is a generic problem that relates to any non-metric value (and some metric values) in space articles. I am more concerned about a generic solution than the individual data but will consider amending it, unless anyone else gets there first. I would like to ask people at an active relevant wikiproject. Any suggestions? Lightmouse (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with agr, it's best to always cite (using {{Cite web}}) a source. —MJCdetroit (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
To change the subject only a little, I have seen heights of space shuttle missions quoted in nautical miles. It seems odd to use such an earth-centric unit for space travel, especially as it is normally reserved for distances measured along the earth's surface (which are not straight lines). Does anyone know the origin of this bizarre practice? Are they quoted in nautical miles by NASA or does Misplaced Pages convert from more sensible units? Thunderbird2 (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Many times quoted as such, as heard here: —MJCdetroit (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Nautical miles for vertical heights are indeed bizarre, not found anywhere else in aeronautics or space, but they are indeed used by NASA.
This whole discussion has little to do with the MoS. There are a number of different "levels" of primacy of measurements. When the NASA public affairs office gets there fingers on the numbers, they often come out different from what the NASA engineers and the like use. But it certainly would be damn foolish to assume all NASA numbers are metric; the $328 million Mars Climate Crash-lander project is ample evidence of that, plus the fact that the NASA bigwigs explicitly refused to adopt the recommendation of their own Inspector General in the wake of that fiasco, that they stick to SI units. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This is also a time-sensitive issue. For example, through the end of the Apollo project at least, most of the NASA data was originally done in English units, with of course a number of specific exceptions. Another example is the thrust in the not-acceptable-for-use-with-SI kilograms-force that were the primary units in the Soviet space program until the late 1980s at least. Now the Russians often use newtons, but others such as the Chinese and even the European Space agency still use those obsolete non-SI units today. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking and autoformatting

I am involved in an argument with another editor about the interpretation of the above:

per WP:DATE:"Misplaced Pages has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." While there will undoubtedly some dates which require linking, I believe the vast majority do not warrant linking. The other editor contends that WP:DATE says that dates should be linked for autoformatting. A date is a unit that includes all three of day, month, and year, and that it never says that a date should not be linked. However, I'm afraid I really don't get the distinction. What is the consensus interpretation on that "rule"? Ohconfucius (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the subject of heated debate. I will soon launch a proposal to make the auto-lemon optional. See above and archives of this page for copious discourse on why. I've held off pending the development and implementation of a solution to the coupling of autoblotch and linking, at Bugzilla, but I'm not confident. Tony (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Tony, you are in a distinct minority in regard to not formatting dates so preferences work. But like you, I think it is senseless that Bugzilla complaints for years haven't led to a better way of implementing autoformatting independent of linking. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

When metric conversions are forbidden

A user refers to Marquise Walker and says the following on my talk page:

Please see Misplaced Pages:MOSNUM#Conversions. Yards in football are a statistical measure equal in length to the common english unit of length. However, they are not converted in general usage when referring to this football statistic.

I usually find non-metric values in sports articles difficult to understand. So I normally leave them alone and I am not bothered about this particular article. However, I would like clarification on principles:

  • Does the cited section actually forbid conversion of yards in football? If so, it needs rewording because I cannot detect that prohibition.
  • Is this issue similar to previous terms of art suggestions about weapon measurements ("9 mm") and race distances ("100 m")?

Lightmouse (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We need input from an American editor to be sure, but let me hazard a guess. Although I don't see it in the guidelines particularly, I think the point here is that the term 'yard' in American football, while not counting directly towards the final result, is used a partial measure of sporting success during a match, similar to individual 'games' in tennis. In tennis, if you win enough games on the trot you will eventually win a set and then the match. I think something similar applies here to yards. Does that make sense? Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict; I'm an American editor) "Forbid" is an awfully strong term, but I do agree that converting yards to meters when discussing American football is rather pointless. When we say, "He first recorded 15 receptions against the Washington Huskies football team on September 8 2001 in a 23–18 loss where he accumulated 159 yards and two touchdowns from quarterback John Navarre", we're not actually talking about a distance of 159 yards (145 m) per se; it's just a sports statistic. And yes, this is very much the same as the terms of art discussion you linked to above. —Angr 12:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
So what does "159 yards" mean? Lightmouse (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
In football, you have to advance the ball by a certain number of yards from its starting point in a certain number of tries. In your attempts to advance the ball, you may actually lose ground, because the quarterback is standing behind the ball's starting point when he receives it, and may drop further back to avoid the opposing team before finding someone to throw it to. If the opposing team gets to him first, he'll actually lose yards. So if your team is successful, at the end of the game you'll have a positive number of yards, but that number won't have any direct reference to how far anyone actually ran during the game. If Walker accumulated 159 yards, it means that's how far he advanced the ball in total, but it was probably spread over a dozen plays in which he probably actually ran at least twice that far. Basically, you can think of yards in football like points, but points that contribute not to the score of the game, but only to the statistics showing how good an individual player or an entire team is. —Angr 12:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
And, on each play, the number of yards is a count of the number of yardlines crossed; 38 inches might be two yards, whereas 34 inches might be zero yards. Subject to somebody's somewhat subjective judgment of where the lines are, of course; the lines aren't drawn every yard. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't mean, however, that there aren't measurements in relation to American football that might benefit from a conversion. For example, an often quoted statistic is a player's time in running 40 yards. A conversion of that fixed number for the distance of this performance testing to 37 meters or even 36.6 m would be reasonable. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
An American football field
Gene stated, "the lines aren't drawn every yard". Yes, there are two sets of "hash-marks"; one on each side of the field. Each hash is one yard apart. Every five yards a "line" is painted all the way across the field—see the image to the right.
A minimum amount of conversions maybe helpful, but what may be best would be to simply state (not a link) what a yard is equal to after the first occurrence and not convert after that. Would you also convert something like Asafa Powell or Donovan Bailey's to be completely converted to yards and ft/s?—Probably not. —MJCdetroit (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments. They are helpful. Lightmouse (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Whenever the ball is spotted between those hashmarks, MJCdetroit, it is still always somebody's guess as to where the ball is in relation to those "lines". Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not up to Misplaced Pages to set in stone what units are to be used and what units are not to be used. The units used in articles are according to the MOS (and always should be) those used by the majority of reliable sources relevant to the article with the option of using disambiguation conversions to some other units in parenthesis. Fnagaton 12:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is entirely proper for us to make such style choices. The only issue is whether or not we should do so. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Markup for hard space: voting ends soon!

There is discussion here about improved markup for the hard space (non-breaking space, non-break space, &nbsp;, etc.). Some of us are working towards an important proposal for this essential element in good editing (relevant for proper formatting of numbers with their associated units, formulae in mathematics and the sciences, and many other purposes). It usually escapes attention because spaces are invisible. See some of the earlier discussion at WT:MOS.

Editors still have the opportunity to vote for their preferred markup for the hard space. But voting ends soon: about 24 hours from the time of this posting, at 00:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

Let's all work on this one together.

– Noetica Talk 00:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hard space: results of the vote on preferred markup

The hard-space working group has voted on preferred markup. See the results and join the discussion HERE. All editors are welcome, of course. The page has been trimmed and archived. Get oriented by reading at the top. The current agenda item is highlighted in yellow.

These discussions and votes do not aim at "official" status, but they will feed into a big proposal that we will make to the whole Misplaced Pages community.

– Noetica Talk 08:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

appearance of N·m on your browser

Feedback is requested on the following problem. The text "N·m" (the symbol for a newton metre) appears in my internet browser as

  • letter "N" and letter "m" separated by a black square, like a check box, about half the size of the letter "N",

whereas it should be

  • letter "N" and letter "m" separated by a middle dot.

I am not looking for a solution to this problem (though I would be grateful for one nevertheless). Rather, I am trying to establish how widespread it is. Which of the following do you see here: "N·m" ?

a) a black square between N and m
b) a black dot between N and m
c) something else (please specify)

Thanks Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It shows as a correct middot on my IE7. −Woodstone (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a correct middot for me too (Firefox on Windows XP, using Verdana as my standard display font). —Angr 15:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It shows as a middle dot for me, using Windows XP SP 2, with two browsers, IE7 and Firefox. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Same for me. EdChem (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What browser are you using? —Remember the dot 20:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And have you changed the default browser font, encoding preferences, or the regional settings of your operating system? For the record, it works for me on WinXP x64 edition, with the latest Firefox or IE7, with the default settings for the UK, except the font set to Arial Unicode MS. – Kieran T 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I use MS Internet Explorer v6.0, with Windows Millenium. I haven't (knowingly) changed any settings or preferences. (At work I have Firefox with Windows XP; it works fine there) Thunderbird2 (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Shows as a mid dot on my UK default Safari 3.0 on Mac OS X 4 Dick G (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Grammar in the guideline

"Spell out ordinal numbers when they are inclusive used as the first word" doesn't look right to me. If someone knows what is meant by that, please fix it. Chris the speller (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what is meant. But if you look at the whole sentence and the examples given, there is a high probability that it is a stupid, half-thought out rule of the sort all too common in the MoS, one that should not be there in the first place:
  • The full sentence says: "Spell out ordinal numbers when they are inclusive used as the first word of a proper name (e.g. Fourth Amendment; Seventeenth Judicial District)."
Nobody ever writes "Seven Hundred Eighty-Fourth Tank Battalion"; nobody ever even bothered to make a redirect from that to 784th Tank Battalion (United States), and Sixth Ranger Battalion is against the conventions of the United States Army as well; it is quite properly found under 6th Ranger Battalion.
That's likely one example out of many for which the stated rule, even if someone can make it comprehensible, will still be nonsense. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
In United States Army nomenclature, IIRC, the spelled-out ordinals are used only for "Armies", such as the Sixth Army. The conventions may differ elsewhere; we have Misplaced Pages articles at Sixth Army (France), Sixth Army (Germany), 6th Army (Soviet Union), and Sixth United States Army. Roman numerals for Corps with no dots or other ordinal indicators in U.S. usage such as V Corps and III Corps, Arabic numeral ordinals for most everything else above company level (usually with just "d" appended to the number for second or third or blankety-second and the like). Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Extra bullet regarding citation in units

I added an extra bullet to the units section regarding citing sources. It stated:

Measurements should be accompanied by a proper citation of the source using <ref name=> </ref> tags and a citation template such as {{Cite web}} from Category:Citation templates.

That was disliked for the reasoning that "citation TEMPLATES are not required; any method of formatting citations is allowed". Therefore, I made the bullet much more generic and inserted as:

Measurements should be accompanied by a proper citation of the source using a method described at the style guide for citation.

My question is: shouldn't we have a preferred method of citing a source for units of measurement? If the the Harvard style is used it could result in something that looks clumsy or cluttered (for lack of a better words). Does anyone have any thoughts on this? —MJCdetroit (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the second version of the edit is a definite improvement. I don't think we can have a different method for measurements than for the rest of the article. There seems to be no hope of establishing a uniform system of citation for Misplaced Pages, but if I were choosing a system for a paper with lots of measurements, I would choose Harvard. This is because the superscripted numbers used with notes might be confused with an exponent. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with the change and with the use of "Harvard"; strictly, Misplaced Pages goes a bit beyond Harvard as ISBN's are added for books, but that is not a bad thing.Pyrotec (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
More senseless instruction creep. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Senseless instruction creep is the insistance on this or that citation style but I'd say that (at least generally) there is sense in the insistance on a citation of some sort but this latter is not a case of instruction creep since it's already policy, it's simply been given an explicite mention here, which ain't really a bad thing. Jɪmp 03:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Citation of some sort is no different for measurements than for anything else. The rules for that aren't in the province of the MoS. It's instruction creep for the MoS to deal with it. Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Then it's an existant instruction creeping in where it doesn't belong. Jɪmp 08:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

ISO dates as wiki markup for formatting

See User:Omegatron/Date formatting for examples and explanation of the "ISO as markup" proposal. Please comment. — Omegatron 05:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about linking

Just a quick one, hopefully, as I can't see this discussed on the page anywhere. Ignoring for now the merits or otherwise of date linking, what is the preferred method of linking when the exact date is not known? e.g. should I use ] ] or ] - both of which return valid articles? Thanks in advance, Liquidfinale 08:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Where you don't have the full date, then the answer is neither. Unless the month or year has some special relevance to the article, and following the link would be useful for the reader. Date linking is used, where the date hasn't got special relevance, only for auto-formatting according to user preferences. Since auto-formatting just controls whether, for example, "9 January 2008" or "January 9, 2008" is displayed, there's nothing for it to do when you don't have the full date. So, to answer again: neither. HTH. Carre (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks; that was indeed helpful. Best regards, Liquidfinale 09:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
And give the full auto-lemon a miss, too; your readers will appreciate not having silly blue blotches everywhere. Tony (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop, Tony. You have not achieved consensus for your positions on this matter. Rmhermen (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I will not stop. Read the text of MOS carefully and you'll see problems in enforcing what you call a mandatory function. Tony (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

One-digit ages

Her son died at the age of 1.
Her son died at the age of one.

Are such usages as the one above mentioned here? It seems as if this should be another exception to the rule of spelling out one-digit ages. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If we are not talking about arithmetic (or addresses), then I'd been led to believe that numbers of ten or less should be speltout as words not written as numbers; e.g. one, not 1; whereas 11 or 12 was OK. On that basis the preference would be Her son died at the age of one., not Her son died at the age of 1.. I'm not sure whether it is in MoS, or where?Pyrotec (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Markup for the hard space: update

I am pleased to announce that we have a complete draft proposal for you to inspect, comment on, and modify.

Just go to the working group's development page, read the instructions at the top, and take it from there.

Or click "show" to see a draft, right here:

See a full draft of the proposal

User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP/StableWholeProposal

– Noetica Talk 07:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Omegatron's recent changes to the main page involving binary prefixes

Omegatron has recently made some changes to the main page however Omegatron did not first discuss those changes, i.e. he did not gain consensus for those changes. Since his changes remove certain important portions of the guideline I am reverting them as is correct and proper. Fnagaton 14:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The changes involved binary prefixes (diff here) —MJCdetroit 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Moved from Omegatron's talk page:
Someone else just pointed out to me that you made this change recently. This change was not talked about and also includes changes that change the meaning beyond the consensus that was agreed. For example you completely removed the phrase "When in doubt, stay with established usage in the article, and follow the lead of the first major contributor." but your other changes also were not agreed. Please do not make such changes without talking about them first. Fnagaton 11:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but I'm not required to ask your permission before fixing a spelling error or smoothing the wording of a sentence. You don't own this page, and you don't make policy by yourself.

If you or anyone else has a problem with one of my small changes (such as clarifying the bit that was tagged with {{clarifyme}}, or moving "in 1999" to a different part of a sentence), improve on it by further editing the guideline directly, or discuss it here. Revert warring every change I made is antagonistic and unproductive.

As for the "first contributor" rule:

Without consensus for a site-wide guideline on the use of binary prefixes, the issue is decided on an article-by-article basis. If there is an issue with units on a particular article, that issue is decided on the talk page for that article. There is absolutely no reason why we would choose the "first contributor's" favorite style over one that makes more sense in a certain context.

I'm sure this was invented based on the English varieties rules. In these, the "first contributor" rule is a last resort, used when there isn't a better reason to choose one over the other. It's not a precedent to jump to whenever three people disagree with something, and it doesn't necessarily carry over to unrelated issues like units or punctuation or grammar.

The use of units isn't an issue where the differences are merely aesthetic and can be decided by an arbitrary rule. The different ways of using units have different purposes, and one may be more applicable than another in different contexts (just like British English is used in articles about Tolkien, even if the first contributor happened to prefer American).

If this really were the rule, it would enable editors like Sarenne or Fnagaton to go around creating articles in their preferred format and then telling others that it couldn't be changed because they were the "first contributor". (I wouldn't be surprised if this was the original intention behind trying to squeeze it into this guideline.) This is not how Misplaced Pages editing works.

Please try to edit productively and cooperatively. If you continue revert warring without justification, you'll be blocked. — Omegatron 15:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You go far beyond fixing spells errors or other such sontent in the guideine, you removed parts which effect the content and meaning of the guideline and you did not discuss those changes. Do not make threats of "blocking" just because you want to push through your edits that do not have consensus. You are the person who is acting against consensus here and you are at fault. I revert you because you do not have consensus to make those changes, that is also correct justification. If you continue to edit war I will report you for 3RR violation. Fnagaton 16:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)