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 02:37, 12 June 2014 editEEng (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors97,958 edits Consistent style for this guideline?: Let's continuum this discussion elsewhere← Previous edit Revision as of 06:27, 12 June 2014 edit undoJJada (talk | contribs)13 edits Arbor tree-ish break #2Next edit →
Line 500: Line 500:
::Sorry, nothing is as simple as "System S is official for everything in Country C". Do you imagine the British Army measures boot sizes in centimeters? -- and if it does I'll be happy to supply 5 other counterexamples. And even if there really were some universal from-on-high attempt to impose some system, if actual practice is different, that's what we'll follow, regardless of what officials are trying to do. ] (]) 23:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC) ::Sorry, nothing is as simple as "System S is official for everything in Country C". Do you imagine the British Army measures boot sizes in centimeters? -- and if it does I'll be happy to supply 5 other counterexamples. And even if there really were some universal from-on-high attempt to impose some system, if actual practice is different, that's what we'll follow, regardless of what officials are trying to do. ] (]) 23:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Funnily enough, I think a lot of our military clothing comes in metric sizes, including mondo-sized boots (the same system that is used for ski boots etc). ] (]) 00:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC) :::Funnily enough, I think a lot of our military clothing comes in metric sizes, including mondo-sized boots (the same system that is used for ski boots etc). ] (]) 00:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
::::These articles will be used by students to help with their studies, so we should use modern units that they are familiar with. ] (]) 06:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


== WP:SEASON == == WP:SEASON ==

Revision as of 06:27, 12 June 2014

Shortcuts
WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
Note icon
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate.
Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Note icon
For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archiving icon
Archives
General Binary prefixes Years and dates See also


This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Dates and numbers page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163Auto-archiving period: 20 days 

Does MOS:LARGENUM say to ignore what referenced material says and round off if you feel like it?

If an exact number is given by the census, a review site, or whatever else is being referenced, why would you then ignore what the sources say, and just round it off to a different number? Would any print encyclopedia do that? Box office results for films always have an exact number. Article for towns have an exact number for population. Most game articles that have an infobox for "Review scores" and "Aggregate scores" use the number given by the sources, but recently some are arguing to round those off simply because they prefer a rounded off number instead of having up to two places behind the decimal point. 4.5 becomes 5, 4.49 becomes 4. MOS:LARGENUM is linked to in the discussion as an excuse to allow this, one editor insisting it encourages rounding off these numbers. Dream Focus 17:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The context in which a large number is used in a Misplaced Pages article determines whether the most precise number available be used, or if it should be rounded to a convenient precision. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
It currently says "Cape Town's 2011 population was 3,740,000 not population was 3,740,026". Why would you not list the exact number? How is replacing 26 with 00 an improvement? Everyone knows if you list their population for that year, you are going by census data. In what specific context exist for the examples I listed previously? Can we just say to quote what the referenced material says, and not round off ever? If an exact number of something is known in the reference, it should be mentioned. Dream Focus 18:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I am only going to address one of Dream Focus' questions: "Can we just say to quote what the referenced material says, and not round off ever?" Misplaced Pages writers have the same freedom to write in a way that is helpful to readers as all the other sources out there that round off numbers. I defy you to find any writing guide that says it is good practice to always reproduce numbers to the full stated precision, without exception. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Addressing the specific example mentioned, I would suggest one of "according to the 2011 census the population was 3,740,026" or (rounding to the nearest 1000) "the population in 2011 was 3,740,000". The former version is better if precision is important. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Almost precisely those examples are already in there. EEng (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The exact number is not particularly useful. Is there a situation on Misplaced Pages where the extra 26 people make a difference? Also, within an hour of that number being recorded, there is likely to be an unpredictable number of births and deaths, so the number is inexact almost immediately after it is recorded. So, for most purposes, a rounded number is easier for readers to deal with and conveys the same practical information. The exact number would only be relevant for things like making sure every citizen received a benefit or performed a required deed - which is outside of WP's scope. Since most people will know that it is an ever changing number, I would just state it as '3,740,000'. But if the purists are causing a fuss, then it could be stated as 'approximately 3,740,000' so that nobody thinks it is exactly 3,740,000.  Stepho  talk  22:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I completely concur, with one clarification: as the same section provides:
Large round numbers (100,000 troops) may be assumed to be interpreted by the reader as approximations; use about or similar qualifiers only where the reader might otherwise be misled. If in doubt write e.g. one hundred thousand troops.
Including "approximately" or such clutters the text to no effect except to insult the reader's intelligence. Purists need not apply. EEng (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. Please, everyone, read the section as it stands carefully -- the initial query, and everything that's been said since, is already anticipated and addressed there.
  • The 100,000 troops example is ridiculous. How would someone just assume that was an approximation? You'd assume that's exactly how many were sent. This is an encyclopedia, and should act as a print encyclopedia would do. Dream Focus 22:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you mean a work like the Encyclopaedia Britannica Almanac 2010 ("Gerald Rudolf Ford", p.540): "In the final days of the Vietnam War in 1975, he ordered an airlift of 237,000 anticommunist Vietnamese refugees..." How frustrating it must have been to be #237,001! ("Sorry sir, President Ford said 237,000.") EEng (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
P.S. p.442 ("Syria") well illustrates appropriate use of low and high precision: "Total active duty personnel (2007): 292,000; UN peacekeeping troops in Golan Heights (September 2008): 1,043."
It will almost never be exactly 100,000, so no, that shouldn't be assumed. As for populations, such precise numbers are nearly always wrong, so it's more accurate to round them off. There are two types of census figures: Reported numbers, which are (essentially) always wrong, and estimated figures, which are only correct when given with their uncertainties. The census may have reported 3,740,026 people, and for a few minutes there may have actually been that many people, but as a figure for the entire year, it's wrong. If we wish to be accurate, which as an encyclopedia I hope we'd want to be, then we need to find the estimated uncertainty and add that to the figure. The final "26" will be dwarfed by the uncertainty – and even the final 40,026 is likely to be. Without an actual uncertainty figure, we should give no more than 3 sig figs, and even 3 is likely to be unduly precise in many cases. If we round off the pop figure to 3,740,000, for example, that implies a precision of 0.13%, and no census of a large population is ever that precise. Rounding off to 3.7 million would imply a precision of 1.4%, which is possible if still a bit unlikely. — kwami (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Make no mistake: as seen in my posts above I agree that, in general, 3 significant figures is a good rule of thumb. But I can't let pass without comment your ideas about the census precision and accuracy. It's complicated (of course) but two quick points: (1) Metropolitan population figures are routinely accurate at far better precisions than the 1% level you seem to expect; (2) you seem to think that precisions (in % terms) for "large populations" are worse than those for smaller populations -- in fact the opposite is generally true, because estimates for large populations will usually come from larger samples. EEng (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
If we can support higher precision, wonderful. Though of course there's still the problem that the change in population across any single year is likely to drown out anything more than maybe four figures.
By "smaller" I meant *much* smaller. I was anticipating an objection that we can have complete precision where one person can count and confirm every individual, such as the number of people living on your block. — kwami (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Not so much "more accurate" as "less misleading about accuracy". All the best: Rich Farmbrough10:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC).
  • As a former census taker decades ago when I was in college, I can attest that censuses are not exact. Some households don't answer the door and other houses have really scary people that are probably not telling you the truth. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • To what Dream Focus started this with: review aggregators collect numerical scores from various sources and perform a flat or weighted average on them. The scores from most sites are two figures of precision ("7.0", "8.5", sometimes 3 ("7.75"). (Arguably there's even a few sites that use 1 but they are in the general minority) So the act of adding and averaging these would give a value that should have no more than 2 digits of precision. However, one aggregator site reports 4 digits (specifically Game Rankings), and they are very clear on how they make the aggregate calculation so that we know they aren't injecting more precision to this calculation. As such, I've routinely suggested we only report their aggregates to 2 figures instead of the 4 they report for exactly the significance issue. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
If you say Game Rankings gave it one score, when in fact it gave it another, then its misleading. Either quote them or don't quote them, don't go changing things. Dream Focus 16:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Game Rankings did not give it a score as they aren't doing review work. They did a calculation (one repeatable by anyone, since they document their process) and gave a result. On the other hand, if a specific review gave a score of "7.75" to a game, we would be wrong to say "they gave them an 8" or even "7.8", they gave them, unequivocally, a "7.75". --MASEM (t) 16:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with rounding off published figures (unless you're quoting a source directly), but I don't think it's true that the precision of the average should be the same as the precision of the individual scores. If I was averaging 5, 7 and 8 I wouldn't give the average as 7, though I might round it to 2 figures (i.e. one more significant figure than the individual scores have) and give it as 6.7. On that basis the aggregates you are considering would have three figures (which coincidentally is a nice compromise between the two positions...) W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

As the guideline says, "Where the uncertainty is not available (or is unimportant for the article's purposes) round to an appropriate number of significant digits". That requires situation-specific discussion, of course, but this isn't the place for that. If we've dispensed with the question of the guidelines themselves, please take it to the Talkpage of the article involved. EEng (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Anywhere else this comes up, will result in someone quoting this guideline page. Therefore it should be discussed here until consensus is established. Dream Focus 23:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
What is "it"? EEng (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The issue DF raised is not on any specific article page but the advice we have used at the Video Games project. And we were discussing it there (at WT:VG), but DF brought the question if this type of rounding was appropriate here. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Specific examples in guidelines

  • I wouldn't really agree with some of the examples in this section. I don't think it should imply that exact census figures should be given only in (practically non-existent) cases where the exact figure caused some sort of stir. Nor that it's necessarily wrong to state the exact amount of damages someone was awarded. These things would all depend on context - in general we ought to assume rather that some readers may be desirous of receiving as precise information as possible (and that the rest are capable of doing their own roundings). The guideline should not be implying that failure to dumb down in this way is wrong. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
All article writing involves substituting summary for indiscriminate barfing out of raw information:. The warning against overprecision, using the specific example of census figures, goes back 8 years or more , and is consistent with what you see in the paper and on the news every day. Readers desiring minutiae such as jury awards to the penny, or what the foreman was wearing as she read the verdict, or other detail that (no doubt) someone, somewhere does want, can look in the sources. Meanwhile the general reader should have his path smoothed (or "rounded", you might say) to the extent possible without sacrificing useful information, and that includes changing static-y overdetail to sensible summary. This isn't "dumbing down" but rather smartening up. EEng (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
It all depends on context, though, and we are not a newspaper. If we're saying what a census figure actually was, we may as well say what it actually was - it costs nothing, and we might actually mislead readers by saying it was something different (and why make people dig around in sources, which might not even be readily available online, when we can just tell them?) If we're saying what the population of a city is (a much fuzzier concept), then certainly we can round off the census figures or any other overly precise data. With damages, if I was mentioning them in passing then I would round them, but if I was writing an article or detailed section about a court case, I would tend to give them in full. The problem with the guideline as written is that it implies, with the use of red ink, that giving precise figures is mostly wrong, whereas in practice the issue is much more subtle, and often such precision would not be wrong at all. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The guidelines call for precise values "where stable and appropriate to context" and otherwise to "round to an appropriate number of digits"; the examples illustrate situations where a precise value, then a rounded value, are used for the speed of light, for a population figure, and for a jury verdict. Yes, it all depends on context, and like all MOS guidelines and examples, these are to be applied with common sense. What more do you want? EEng (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, for a start, removal of some of the "not xxxxx" bits, which imply that giving a particular amount of precision is unequivocally a bad thing, irrespective of context and common sense. Also the census examples given the impression that exact census figures should only be quoted in exceptional (and highly implausible) cases, whereas in fact it seems to be normal and good Misplaced Pages practice to provide them as a matter of record in quite normal contexts (provided it's made clear that what we are quoting is official census figures rather than "the population"). W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's see what others think, shall we? EEng (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, the exceptions could be toned down. If a census in year 1896 gave a population of 323,755, I see no reason why that value should not be stated, if properly qualified using "according to the 1896 census, the population was 323,755" or similar. That is not undue precision because, unlike conversion between feet and metres (for example), there is no rounding involved. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The figures issued by the US Census aren't "populations," but estimated populations. And for California (for example -- see Fig.1 and Tbl. 14 of ) the Census estimates their 2010 estimate of 36,434,100 to be about 1/4 % low, give or take about 3/4 % -- that is, 36,434,100 is low by something like +360,000 to -180,000 (though even larger errors are possible). So (1) articles shouldn't state that

according to the 2010 census, the population was

but rather

the 2010 Census estimate of the population was

and (2) to complete that sentence with "36,434,100" is indeed undue precision because it gives the reader a grossly overoptimistic impression of the uncertainty in that figure. An appropriate figure would be 36,400,000, at which point we can just say

the 2010 population was 36,400,000

since everyone knows that round numbers like that are approximate (which they might not understand if 36,434,100 had been given) and most will understand that such figures come from the Census (and if they don't know that they can look in the footnotes).

To-the-person figures are used as multipliers in revenue-sharing calculations, and denominators in certain percapita calculations, partly for technical reasons and partly because of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution's decennial census requirement. But people doing that kind of work aren't basing it on Misplaced Pages. At least I hope they're not. EEng (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not, but people might be interested in seeing the exact census figures for all sorts of reasons, which we can't necessarily predict (or may simply benefit from the knowledge, which they don't necessarily possess, that census figures are reported to a particular degree of precision). In any case, it's not for a style guideline to dictate how much information editors should be allowed to present to readers - in some cases it may well be more appropriate to round these figures, but it's not for us to lay down, without any knowledge of the possible contexts in which people might attempt to apply such guidance, that a certain degree of roundness is always right while another is always wrong. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
As already mentioned all article writing involves deciding to omit information which someone might want, and there's plenty of flexibility built into recommendations that "appropriate" levels of precision be used and so on, and to use common sense. It's appropriate for the guidelines to give general recommendations along these lines because it's a technical pitfall which experience shows laymen often misunderstand (as this very discussion illustrates). EEng (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
But the general recommendations should not be just one editor's opinion. I've been looking at a few random articles on American towns and cities, and quoting exact census figures seems to be very much the common practice. If you want to change that, you would need a wider consensus. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
As already pointed out, the recommendation not to quote full-precision census figures goes back at least seven or eight years (and likely more -- I didn't chase it further) -- and the fact that no one's made a crusade to conform all articles to this advice doesn't make the advice wrong -- just proves how necessary it is. If you want to change that, you would need wider consensus. EEng (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing in the versions that you link to about census figures. It just says that if you are saying what the population is, then you need to round. We agree about that. But if we are saying what the census figure is, then normal practice is not to round. We possibly agree about that too. But the silly Satanville example that you insist on adding, in spite of the fact that there was nothing like that in any of the versions of the guideline before you added it, implies that giving the precise census figure, rather than the rounded "population" figure, is something you would only do in very rare cases (and it would still imply that even if it didn't say explicitly that it was a rare case). This is the implication that was never in the guideline before, and which is very much at variance with Misplaced Pages practice, and would therefore require some kind of widely reached consensus if it is to remain. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
You're right. The seven-year-or-more advice against quoting overprecise population figures doesn't restrict that advice to overprecise figures from certain sources, whether that's the census or any other. Attributing such an overprecise and misleading figure to the census doesn't change that it's overprecise and misleading, and if anything attributing it to the census compounds the problem by lending an air of authority. I think the Satanville example is amusing and memorable (something sorely lacking in these mostly stuffy and pedantic pages), and attempts to illustrate a situation in which the precise figure might be "appropriate to context" -- but if you have a better example of where it would be appropriate to quote the precise census figure, knock yourself out. As I've said before, if you have trouble coming up with such an example that should tell you something. You keep harping about common Misplaced Pages practice but I've already answered that. And you keep harping that some readers might want to know the full census figure, without giving a single illustration of why that might be other than, "it might be". Once again, why not sit tight and wait to hear from others?

I agree with you, BTW, about the last section on diameters of moons or whatever -- I tagged that myself some time ago as puzzling, but (believe it or not) my aim here is to only make better presentation of what I believe the guidelines already say (or imply), not to change the guidelines, so I left it in. EEng (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

But with the Satanville thing, you've shown you're quite prepared to edit-war in order to force through your change to the guideline. And I HAVE and DID give an example where the precise census figure is appropriate (clearly not just according to me, but according to the many Misplaced Pages editors who use it regularly), namely "the population according to the 2010 census was..." (or whatever one's preferred exact phrasing is) in almost every article on a place for which such a census figure is available. If this kind of statement is now to be denigrated, it should be done based not just on your opinion or the opinion of a few people who watch this page, but on widespread discussion. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Please BE calm. CAPITALS don't HELP. The WORDS "the population according to the 2010 census was..." aren't an EXAMPLE of a SiTUATION in which the precise census estimate would be appropriate for inclusion; it's just some words you might use to carry out such an inclusion. Once again, can you just be calm while we see what others think?

For those who may have lost track while out in the lobby refilling their popcorn, we're talking about the "city" and "town" examples here. Here's what the relevant text looked like a couple of months ago (second bullet). EEng (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This sort of discussion is one of the reasons why I have started to steer clear of WT:MOSNUM. On this occasion EEng is 100% correct and I commend his patience in trying to get others to understand that excess precision is unneeded and bad practise.
Take the example of the population of Capetown above, "Cape Town's 2011 population was 3,740,000 not population was 3,740,026". The rounded number is a better presentation of the data, the exact number from the census is less useful. The figure of 3,740,026 was out of date and inaccurate the moment it was compiled. The census data is always "wrong", why?
In between the census return and the compilation of the figures:
  1. People will be procreating, babies born and the population changes.
  2. People will die
  3. People will leave the area
  4. People will arrive in the area.
In this example and for large numbers in general its impossible to state with any meaningful precision what the exact population is to the nearest individual. Even if you could instantly get the correct figures, someone could walk under a bus a moment later and they'd be wrong again. Hence, for a figure that will stand the test of time, its best to introduce rounding as the figure will remain approximately correct for a longer period of time. Anyone who understands population statistics is going to tell you that a census figure is no more than an estimate.
And if for some reason people want to see the census figures, thats what references are for. Some people seem to forget the basic mission of wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia not assemble random facts that people might on the off-chance wish to see. And some people fall repeatedly into the same trap of demanding to put exactly what the sources says contrary to all manner of common sense, to paraphase common sense seems far from common here sometimes. WCMemail 11:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, WCM. I think what we need, as well, is comment on the specific wording of the "city" and "town" examples linked above. I believe what WPU especially objects to is the statement that it is a "rare" circumstance in which the full-precision census figure should be quoted. EEng (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I object to. And examination of Misplaced Pages articles confirms that it is certainly not a rare circumstance, quite the reverse, at least according to the mass of Misplaced Pages editors who produce articles on towns and cities. W. P. Uzer (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I, too, concur with EEng. Excessive precision is not helpful in an encyclopedia. NB: This statement in the opening post is false: "Box office results for films always have an exact number. Article for towns have an exact number for population." They're very frequently rounded. People need to stop fetishizing details in reliable sources. If an RS uses underlining to emphasize something, we don't have to do that too. If an RS gives a subject's middle name, we don't have to include it too. If an RS says that exactly 1023 people died in a disaster, WP does not have to avoid saying "over 1000" when that works better in the context.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ⱷ≼  12:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Right, it would depend on the context. If you were writing an article about the disaster, then I think it would be pretty stupid to decline to give readers the exact number of people who died, just because we can't think of a concrete way in which the last significant figure would be "useful" to them. But if you were mentioning the disaster in passing in another context, "over 1000" might be perfectly sufficient. Similarly with cities - people writing articles about cities tend to include precise census figures if they have them, along with much other detailed data and information about the place; though you wouldn't do that if you were just mentioning the population of a place in the context of another topic. Hence it is wrong to imply that giving precise figures is "very rare", just as it would be wrong to imply that rounding is something that should be done very rarely. W. P. Uzer (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Nothing in MOSNUM would suggest not giving the correct, detailed number when that's important in the context. This thread is mostly about a weird objection to ever rounding, because that's somehow falsifying the sourced information. That's not a tenable position. I'm skeptical we even need much of a guideline on how/when to round, since that's generally going to be something determined by consensus at an article, or about a group of articles at a wikiproject.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ⱷ≼  14:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a tutorial on technical details is beyond the reasonable scope of MOS, but I think it's important that MOS at least point out that there's an issue to be considered (which, as seen in the OP of this thread, isn't obvious to everyone). Can I ask again that everyone take a look at the guidelines' wording and examples linked in the bold passage above, and comment? I don't think this thread is going to be resolved without that. (I've added two more examples just now -- "planes collided" and "mudslides".) EEng (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Official census results are often useful, even though they cannot be accurate to the full stated precision. This is because government programs often treat them as if they were perfectly accurate, for example, in determining the number of representatives a state is entitled to in the U.S. House of Representatives. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I was addressing when I said in an earlier post above (#census_uncertainty):
To-the-person figures are used as multipliers in revenue-sharing calculations, and denominators in certain percapita calculations, partly for technical reasons and partly because of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution's decennial census requirement. But people doing that kind of work aren't basing it on Misplaced Pages. At least I hope they're not.
Again, dear fellow editors, can we have comment on the specific wording of the guidelines, which seems to be the sticking point? See the bold a ways up for the links. EEng (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I would argue unless it is 100% clear and known that the figure is exact to that many digits (which both things like census counts and box office figures aren't) that we should employ rounding to 2-3 places (or whatever is appropriate for the means the data was calculated). We're likely linking to the data where the number is figured to-the-ones so if someone needs to know that, they can look for it. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
But why give them the extra trouble (particularly if there is no hyperlink)? And census counts are exact to the number of digits to which they are published - as census counts. Of course they are not exact as populations, and nobody thinks or claims that they are. But by arbitrarily rounding them to a particular number of figures, we are both misleading readers (by making them think that the official figures are also so rounded, which in turn might imply something about the way they are computed etc.), and doing original research (by introducing our own opinions as to how accurately the census count approximates the fuzzier parameter of "population"). And occasionally, we might indeed be depriving a reader of some significant information (EEng has already listed ways in which exact census figures are significant, and although people "doing the work" are not using Misplaced Pages as a source, others with an amateur interest in such work might be). Naturally in some contexts these arguments might be outweighed by others (too much precision is distracting when the figures are only incidental to the narrative, etc.) All I'm saying is that we shouldn't imply that either approach is "very rare", as they are both very common. The only problem I have with the guideline as it stands is that the "Satanville" example should be removed - it illustrates an extremely unlikely type of circumstance in any case, and is the source of the implication of rareness that is at variance with Misplaced Pages's practice. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is going in circles because you keep raising the same points without acknowledging the responses already given. Again, in more detail:

  • census counts are exact to the number of digits to which they are published - as census counts
  • As already explained, these are not "counts" but population estimates, which the Bureau arrives at via a process much, much more complicated than just counting up the answers you mail back to them or give the nice lady who rings your doorbell. (See, for starters, Utah v. Evans.)
  • This is just another tautology along the same lines as your earlier offer of "the population according to the 2010 census was..." as "an example where the precise census figure is appropriate." Yes, saying, "The Precise Number Given By Source X is ThePreciseNumberGivenBySourceX" is never going to be a false statement, but that doesn't mean it's the most helpful figure to include in the article.
  • Why force those who want the precise, to-the-person, figure to consult the source for that? Answer: For the same reason we omit any given detail from an article i.e. because
PWPF * ETCSOPF <<<< PNWPF * DATOWTEPWAYWTGHBCII
where
PWPF = People Wanting Precise Figure
ETCSOPF = Extra Trouble of Consulting Source to Obtain Precise Figure
PNWPF = People Not Wanting Precise Figure
DATOWTEPWAYWTGHBCII = Distraction and Annoyance of Tuning Out or Wading Through Excessive Precision When All You Wanted Was To Grasp How Big a City It Is
<<<< indicates way, way, way smaller than
As Jeremy Bentham would say, "The proper course of action is that gives the greatest good to the greatest number." Or (if you prefer) Mr. Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one) who want the overprecise census number, though we don't really know how many want the overprecise number since the census takers don't ask that question and even if they did it would still be just an estimate so we shouldn't treat it as an exact number anyway."
Compare the following tables. What in the world is the typical reader going to do with the "060" people purportedly residing in Boston in 1920?
Boston population history (sensibly rounded)
YearPop.
172210,600
176515,500
179018,300
180024,900
181033,800
182043,300
183061,400
184093,400
1850137,000
1860178,000
1870251,000
1880363,000
1890448,000
1900561,000
1910671,000
1920748,000
1930781,000
1940771,000
1950801,000
1960697,000
1970641,000
1980563,000
1990574,000
2000589,000
2010618,000
2012636,000
* = population estimate.
Source: United States census records and Population Estimates Program data.
Boston population history (distractingly overprecise)
YearPop.
172210,567
176515,520
179018,320
180024,937
181033,787
182043,298
183061,392
184093,383
1850136,881
1860177,840
1870250,526
1880362,839
1890448,477
1900560,892
1910670,585
1920748,060
1930781,188
1940770,816
1950801,444
1960697,197
1970641,071
1980562,994
1990574,283
2000589,141
2010617,594
2012636,479
* = population estimate.
Source: United States census records and Population Estimates Program data.
  • By arbitrarily rounding them to a particular number of figures, we are both misleading readers (by making them think that the official figures are also so rounded, which in turn might imply something about the way they are computed etc.), and doing original research (by introducing our own opinions as to how accurately the census count approximates the fuzzier parameter of "population")
  • It doesn't matter whether the reader thinks that it was WP that did the rounding, or that the Census did it. Take a parallel examples. If an article says, "The insurance payout was $1.4 million," the actual payout may have been exactly that amount (a negotiated settlement, "rounded" from various damages computations), or may have been $1,376,332.54 (awarded by a judge who added up a bunch of medical bills). I suppose that some readers may not realize the possibility of the second situation, and therefore might not consult the source to discover the $1,376,332.54 figure. But that's not an argument for the article to quote $1,376,332.54 instead of $1.4 million. We have to assume a level of reader sophistication commensurate with the subtlety of the detail we're omitting -- a reader who doesn't realize that the more precise figure might exist probably isn't prepared to make use of it anyway.
  • Though it does require judgment (as do almost all editorial decisions) the rounding isn't arbitrary, nor is it based on "our own opinions as to how accurately the census count approximates the fuzzier parameter of 'population'" -- it's explained above at #census_uncertainty. Routine arithmetic isn't OR, and if rounding isn't routine, then our insurance payout must be reported as $1,376,332.54, which is a nonstarter. And the population parameter isn't fuzzy at all -- it's extremely sharply defined by the Census; rather it's the estimates that are, necessarily, fuzzy.
  • Though personally I believe the Satanville example to be a masterwork of didactic achievement -- indeed, the epitome of pedagogy perfected -- in the interests of world peace I've sacrificed it for the greater good .

EEng (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, although I see you've now transferred the "rare case" wording to one of the other examples, which means that the problem persists, in that you are trying to impose your views (expressed at length above) without consensus (vide several other comments expressing the view that census figures should be reported in full, and the very many articles in Misplaced Pages in which this is in fact done). You say "we have to assume a level of reader sophistication..." - well yes, we have to assume that readers are sufficiently non-stupid to realize that a census figure is not the true exact population at any one time (however that might be defined), but precisely what it is, an officially reported census figure. Credit the reader with the intelligence to do with this figure what she will. I checked in Britannica yesterday (the most? recent print edition) and this is exactly what they do too - in fact they don't even bother to say "census estimate" or whatever, they just say "Pop. (1981) 345,678". The reasonably sophisticated reader then knows that it's an officially reported figure, knows that it isn't the real exact population, and can make use of as many or as few of the significant figures as he chooses. Of course, in some contexts rounding is preferable, and this will be a matter of editorial judgement. Personally I prefer the non-rounded version of the table you give above - of course I won't use the last 3-4 significant figures at all, but they tell me straight off that these are the kind of figures that are typically reported to that kind of precision (i.e. they are census figures rather than, for example, some historian's scholarly estimates). And in such a table, these figures are not in any way distracting. Also the non-rounded version is the version I would normally expect to find in a Misplaced Pages article. My point is, succinctly, that giving exact figures is not rare. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I wish you'd stop calling the census estimates "exact" because that's, well, an inexact term -- they're unavoidably of limited accuracy, and what we're discussing is the level of precision at which they should be presented.
  • WRT Britannica, I guess that in the 30 years (note: rounded number of years) between your citation (1981) and mine way up in this thread (2010) they've figured out that rounding is the better approach.
  • As pointed out over and over, the MOS recommendation against reporting precise population numbers (from whatever source) is at least seven years old, and specific language like this
The distance from the Earth to the Sun is 149,014,769 kilometres and The population of Cape Town is 2,968,790 would usually not be appropriate, because both values are unstable at that level of precision, and readers are unlikely to care in the context.
has been present for several years now at least so please cut the talk about my imposing my views and so on.
  • "My point is, succinctly, that giving exact figures is not rare." My point, succinctly, is that we're discussing not what articles now give, but what they ought to give. That's what a manual of style is for.
Once again I think we should pause and hear from others. I'd like to hear, explicitly, whether anyone other than WPU objects to the guideline as now written.
EEng (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with most of it. The main point of contention is about population census, for I which I have yet to see a convincing reason to discourage quoting a precise value, always with the caveat that it is the value returned by the census and not of the true population. The reason for making an issue on this particular point is that I have the impression - and please correct me if I've got this wrong - that a census is (nearly) always biased by omission of a proportion of the population, and that no attempt is made to correct for that bias. Presenting a rounded number suggests to me that an (unbiased) estimate of the true population is presented, or at least attempted. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
(I'm answering for the US census, which is the only one I'm familiar with in detail.) Without getting into a lecture about the meaning of bias, the short answer is that machinery is indeed applied to reduce certain biases, particularly nonresponse bias -- see Utah v. Evans, with the result that the Bureau estimates that some states are overcounted and some undercounted, and that the US as a whole was overcounted (in 2010) by 0.01% (see p.21-22 of ). Does that help? EEng (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes it does. If census authorities generally make a concerted attempt to correct for biases like the one I mentioned, it makes more sense to round them than not. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
<rubs hands gleefully> Good. Gooooood! Your conversion to the dark side is almost complete... EEng (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbor-treeish break

Well, if we have information about estimated biases (either those that have been corrected for, or those that are believed still to be present), we can provide such information too, explicitly, as long as the context is such that such level of detail is appropriate. Misplaced Pages, unlike Britannica, has lots of space. (By the way, do you actually have a later copy of Britannica where they round population figures, or are you just assuming they do because you're so sure that you're right? I don't remember if 1981 was the actual date on the figures I read - I didn't think to check in the library which edition it was. ) In any case, what's appropriate to give is very much dependent on the context, and I don't think the agreement of a slight majority among the few people watching here is sufficient to declare that common practice on hundreds of thousands of Misplaced Pages articles is suddenly definitively wrong. You seem to think that you're just saying the same as the guideline always said, but the guideline previously said nothing about it being "very rare" to give precise census figures; it just said that the particular phrasing "the population was (exact figure)" is usually inappropriate, with which I agree. W. P. Uzer (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You're confusing bias with chance error, and this is beginning to get silly. So now you want us to say
Pennsylvania's population is estimated at 12,276,301, with an asymmetric 68% confidence interval of 12,140,033 to 12,378,193.
-- ? You really think readers will get more out of that than out of
Pennsylvania (2010 population 12,300,000) is an Eastern state etc etc and so on and so forth...
And your concern now is that
is a rare example in which X is appropriate
is a substantive change from
X is usually inappropriate
Really??? If it said "unusual example" would that help? EEng (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The two X's are not the same. What's wrong with "the population is 123,456", for me, is the phrasing (it would be better to say "the census estimate of the population" or something). For you, it's the fact that Misplaced Pages might dare trust or honour its readers with the information about the exact census figure at all, either because (a) they are too stupid to realize that it isn't the exact real population,; (b) their interest is too shallow to want to know anything but very rough population figures, and any nerdy intellectuals who want more can just go and look elsewhere. I would rather trust them with the full information that we have - and if we have sourced information about confidence intervals, then that's great and we should certainly give that too, somewhere, obviously not in the lead of the article, but perhaps in a footnote, say, or in a specialized section on population if there is one. We have lots of space, and of course in many places it's better to give the rounded figure, but contexts in which unrounded ones are appropriate are neither rare nor unusual. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Past the three or four significant digits everything is noise -- that's why they're called nonsignificant. The census reports to the man because the Constitution requires it to do that. But it doesn't require us to that, and we don't need to be one of those sources that foolishly parrot a number they don't understand. It's like someone said earlier in this thread: people need to stop fetishizing details in sources.
I, and I think others, are still waiting for you to give an example of a situation in which the precise census figure would be appropriate. I can think of three:
  • an article on statistical issues in census procedures;
  • an article on House of Representatives apportionment;
  • an article on lay misunderstandings of statistical issues.
Unless something substantive is said addressing that I don't think I'll be responding anymore, and it doesn't look like anyone else will either. EEng (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I think the exact census figure is appropriate, somewhere, in every article whose subject is a place for which an exact census figure is available. If the place is small (e.g. population 937), then any rounding we do is likely to be problematic (940 still looks like an exact figure, and 900 is starting to destroy significant information). If the place is large, then we expect the article to be large too, and within such an article, the matter of the place's population (which is generally one of the most significant things that people want to know about a place) is worthy of more lengthy discussion at some point, in which full sourced information, including error estimates if available, can be given. Every figure might be significant to someone, somewhere, for some reason (as in the 9,997<10,000 example you have given, except the editor might not happen to know about the reason), and as I keep saying, giving a figure to full available precision helps let people know what kind of figure it is (and also enables them to know, if they've seen the exact same figure somewhere else, that the two must derive from the same primary source). And as I also keep saying, there are many contexts in which rounding is entirely appropriate - I just think the guideline should acknowledge that both approaches have their proper place. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Absent consideration of the likely errors in small-town population figures (I don't know too much about them) I agree that 937 should probably remain 937, on the general principle that 3-4 figures is both the limit of accuracy, and as much or more than the casual reader can sensibly use for any practical purpose. 83,672 should be rendered as 83,700. For 8342 I'll have to consult my spiritual advisor.

The fact that every piece of data might be conceivably be wanted by someone leads to indiscriminately including absolutely every detain in every article, and that can't be right. You say you want the guideline to acknowledge -- can you suggest a wording we can discuss? EEng (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I think the exact value is preferable because it can stand on its own, and can easily be verified against the source. Rounding involves a subjective decision by the editor as to precision, and requires a statement of that precision in order to avoid ambiguity (e.g. is 2,300,000 shown to 2 sigfigs or 4, or 7?).

    Worse, it can cause exaggerated rounding errors if the rounded value is (improperly) used as a source and rounded again to a less precise value. For example, 0.2345 in source is chosen to be rounded to 0.235 (three decimals) in a table of an article and its Infobox. Later, someone comes along and decides to change the Infobox in a way that allows room for only 2 decimal places, and changes the value to 0.24. Yes, they should have looked at the source and rounded 0.2345 to 0.23 instead, but I believe it's more likely that they won't. So, along with a declaration of precision, it turns out you need to know the next two decimal places to avoid this exaggerated error. Exact values are also necessary when you want to include totals and do other sorts of math on them.

    I vote to use exact wherever possible. When rounding is necessary, the rounding process should be documented (i.e. give precision chosen and exact values in footnotes). —— 09:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC) (edited) —— 09:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You're rounding wrong. Remember the odd/even rule? 0.2345 rounds to 0.234, but 0.2355 rounds to 0.236. Part of the reason for this is to avoid exactly the problem you're describing. Rounding requires judgment, but so does all editing. The kind of reasoning you're using would be an argument for no one to round ever, and since scientists and statisticians do it all the time that can't be right. EEng (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
But change the figures slightly, and the argument still holds. Rounding, in matter-of-record situations (as opposed to mention-it-in-passing situations), brings its own set of problems - and doesn't provide any real benefit in return. As to specific wording, I don't think the guideline needs to go into this matter in detail, particularly as there is no obvious consensus, and editors can be left to use their common sense, but I just feel the parenthetical remark "(Unusual case in which the full-precision official population figure is helpful to readers)" should be removed, because it implies that such a figure should only be given at all in such unusual cases, which would go against established practice and would have the various disadvantages that have been mentioned. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

We're going around in circles again. I guess I'm back to what I said earlier.

I, and I think others, are still waiting for you to give an example of a situation in which the precise census figure would be appropriate... Unless something substantive is said addressing that I don't think I'll be responding anymore.

EEng (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what circles you think we're going round in; I thought we were making some progress. I've already answered pretty clearly: "I think the exact census figure is appropriate, somewhere, in every article whose subject is a place for which an exact census figure is available." The various reasons for this view have been given by myself and others; you've even largely agreed with it yourself (given that 3-4 sig figs is probably already the exact figure in the majority of cases, or at least in as many cases as not to be rare or unusual). So can we go ahead and remove the parenthetical that I objected to above - or should we perhaps include some more lengthy/explicit cautions in the guideline specifically about the typical levels of (in)accuracy of census-based population figures? W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe my example is correct. I should have specified that I am using the "Round half away from zero" method, which was the method commonly used in the physical sciences at least, last time I checked (and reasonably assumed unless otherwise specified). I made at least three points as to why either the exact source figure should be given or, perhaps better, noted along with its precision/uncertainty:
  1. Exact/easy verification against the source
  2. No danger of exaggerated error due to multiple rounding
  3. Inherently ambiguous precision of numbers that are exact multiples of powers of 10 (e.g. 2,340,000).
I'd really like to see a standard evolve for doing this, like maybe templates that take sigfig or error param(s) and footnote them for you, though this would only be necessary for single values – a whole table of populations needs only one sigfig note. —— 19:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion of a "rounding" template

I think this is a great idea, but instead of a footnote, perhaps a hover/mouseover could pop up the original value as given in the source, and also tell the level of precision/ type of rounding applied, and maybe some arbitrary text.

It's way over my paygrade to implement such a thing, but still I need to say something. We have an awful lot of templates exhibiting truly miserable design sense, and I'd like to not have another one added to that pile -- especially not some new thing inconsistent with existing templates e.g. sci/eng notation templates, if there are any. Also, I think {{convert}} has facilities for rounding and so on, and integration with that is highly desirable. In fact, it's possible that what we want is an extension of "convert", since obviously the desire to round, and need for conversion, often come up together. (I suspect those who maintain "convert" won't be looking forward to this, however.)

Such a facility wouldn't solve fundamental disagreement about when to round, and how much, though it does address some of the concerns expressed e.g. re error accumulation with successive roundings -- if the template accepts the original source value, then adjustments to displayed # sigfigs always go back to the original value -- and the original unrounded value is always available to the reader who wants it, via the hover mechanism described.

BTW, if you really want to understand -- really understand -- rounding issues, get a copy of Forman Acton's REAL computing made real : preventing errors in scientific and engineering calculations -- one of those truly rare books by someone who knows, in depth, what he's talking about.

EEng (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

<bump> I'm really disappointed no one's picked up this ball and run with it. It was someone else's idea, but it's a great one. I wish someone would take it over to wherever it is the template-mavens hang out. EEng (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Convert can be kludged to round values like this:

  • {{convert|12345.6789|m|m|2|disp=number}} → 12,345.68
  • {{convert|12345.6789|m|m|-2|disp=number}} → 12,300

That converts the input number in meters to meters, rounding the output, and displaying only the output number. Convert uses "round half up" (rounding with "|0" on 1.5 would give 2, and 2.5 would give 3). I have wondered whether some more direct method of formatting/rounding the input number might be useful, but am reluctant to bolt-on more weird options without first rethinking the whole thing. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's possible that's pretty close to what we want (where "pretty close" means the first 80% is done, so all that's needed is the other 80%). What I see offhand as missing is:
  • A way to do rounding in the context of a units conversion, with both the primary and secondary units rounded in a controlled way.
  • Some kind of mouseover/hover like I mentioned above, so that those who want the full precision can get that easily (since people seem to think that's very important) -- also if we could add some arbitrary text to the hover.
  • Um, something else I can't remember now.
EEng (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Publication dates

Publication dates in references should all use the same format. Any format from the "Acceptable date formats" table above may be used; in addition formats required by the citation style being used may be used (however, all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided).

Am I missing something here? How would formats required by the citation style being used be an addition? Surely we'll be sticking to one citation style for all references which should in turn ensure that all publication dates be in the same format. Jimp 10:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the meaning is that the set of formats to chose from for publication dates consists of the formats in the "Acceptable date formats" table and the citation style being used in the article. There is an exception: if the citation style being used in the article calls for an all-numeric format such as mm/dd/yy, that is disallowed. From the set of acceptable formats, only consistent formats should be used. For example, in one article, "July 2000" and "18 May 2012" would be consistent, "18 May 2012" and "September 30, 2013" would be inconsistent. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
And what exactly would be the argument for allowing yyyy mon dd and disallowing mm/dd/yy, which seems to be what you are suggesting, if both are valid external date formats? -- Ohc  07:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The only numerical dates allowed are yyyy-mm-dd in references and other places where brevity is required. Numeric dates like mm/dd/yy are strictly not allowed because 01/02/03 looks like 1 Feb 2003 to most of the British Commonwealth (eg my country of Australia), 2 Jan 2003 to Americans, 3 Feb 2001 to most Asian countries when using the Julian calendar and some countries like China and Japan use 2 digit years based from recent events.  Stepho  talk  09:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm referring to the yyyy mon dd date format as in "2014 May 17" that is supposedly according to AP style and whose authorisation has been strongly argued by Jc3s5h. -- Ohc  16:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
@Ohconfucius:, is your question "what is the difference in the reasoning behind allowing 2014 May 17 but disallowing 11/5/14"? The difference is that 11/5/14 is ambiguous in a publication such as Misplaced Pages where several national varieties of English are allowed. As for "yyyy mon dd", that is not a date recommended by the AP; they would write, for example, "Feb. 14, 1987". Further, newspapers do not use in-text citations and bibliographies, so their style would have no application to Misplaced Pages citations. However, APA style does use a format for publication dates that differs from anything in MOSNUM: "(yyyy, month, dd)." APA style is specifically named as being acceptable for citations here. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Tera ambigious?

"In quantities of bits and bytes, the prefixes tera (T), etc. are ambiguous", tera maybe, peta, exa? I just noticed that JEDEC (in the table) doesn't define tera. Note also for Tb/s rates (as in networks) and lower rates have been historically always been in decimal. The largest memory module is now 128 GB (just released) . It takes three more doublings to reach binary TB, in one module. Yes, there are big systems/file systems, but file systems at least in Linux and Windows and computers in general handeling this amount of data have used decimal prefixes for a long time, right? comp.arch (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think have seen IBM using exa as a power of 1024. Does that make it ambiguous or simply incorrect usage? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Both :) tera and all the prefixes are of course SI-prefixes so decimal is "correct" and binary "incorrect". Would like a good source for actual tera or more binary use. I've seen pages generally describe all the units as 1024 bigger than the next if that counts as a good source, these big numbers are however not much used in practice and then (mostly) as decimal? Eventually we will get in exabyte ranges of RAM combined, we are currently in terabytes (gigabytes for single modules). What started out as 0.24% small error for KB/KiB vs. kB, is an big error of 10% and 15% error for tebibytes (TiB) vs "terabytes" TB (decimal) and exibytes (EiB) vs "exabytes" (EB). comp.arch (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The heading of this section should have been Tera incognito EEng (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
"1024 Gigabytes = 1 Terabyte" A table that shows binary use. And another. And . And another Terabyte (and the others) is not ambiguous because the meaning is obvious to those with knowledge in the field. Fnagaton 19:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The guideline states "In quantities of bits and bytes, the prefixes kilo (symbol k or K), mega (M), giga (G), tera (T), etc. are ambiguous." Perhaps it should say potentially ambiguous. In articles that make it clear that the device under consideration is a RAM or ROM, and where the article is advanced enough that only people with knowledge in the field would be reading it, the prefixes are unambiguous. For novice readers, it may be ambiguous (but usually, those readers won't need to know which definition applies). In the case of an article that discusses the superficial characteristics of a device without revealing the underlying technology, the meaning is ambiguous (but again, in a superficial discussion, the difference in meanings probably isn't important). Jc3s5h (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
For as long as two different meanings are recognised for a prefix, that prefix is ambiguous. That is what the word means. It does not follow that all uses of that prefix are ambiguous, because there is nothing to stop the user of the prefix defining it each time it is used. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
They're not ambiguous according to the definition you link because when someone has relevant knowledge in the field the prefixes are not ambiguous, they are obvious to someone with skill in the field. Fnagaton 12:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Correctness matters, even in examples: pressure is not mass

A table in this article groups "ppi" (= pounds per square inch) together with six units of mass under a group "Mass". Confusion about the differences between pressure and mass are frequent in school physics; Misplaced Pages should not advance such confusion. Pressure is not mass, even though the two are frequently confused in popular writing. I tried to solve this by introducing a schort "Pressure" section and adding two often used and correct units of pressure (Pascal and bar). EEng reverted this; for presumably good reasons. I therefore suggest removing ppi from this (examplary) list alltogether. If it can not be presented right, it should not be listed at all. Wefa (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

My edit summary explained pretty well, I think, why the table isn't sliced up into a hundred tiny sections:
I see what you're trying to do, but note ea section (mass, length, etc.) includes rates, densities, etc. related to the base unit-type. This is to reduce fragmentation of tbl & to allow related units to be nearby
To allay Wefa's concern I've changed the main group names from Mass to Mass etc., from Length to Length etc. and so on. Yet I didn't change Information to Information etc. because I just don't think the difference in formality between Information and Rate of Information is worth worrying about. See what I'm saying? EEng (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused by this question on several levels. Typically mass might be confused with weight, which is a kind of force. One might similarly confuse a load expressed (for example) in kg/m with a pressure expressed in N/m (i.e. pascals), but I don't understand why anyone would confuse a mass with a pressure. Weight could colloquially be expressed in kilograms or newtons; it would never be expressed in pascals. Also, nobody would refer to psi as "ppi". Archon 2488 (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think ppi is just a typo for psi. As for the rest, the OP is right that people sometimes say stuff like "exerted 10 pounds of pressure" and that doesn't help when they get to an environment, like physics, where precise terminology matters. EEng (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
In physics, weight is sometimes regarded as the force on an object resulting from gravity. But in weights and measures law, weight is often regarded as the mass of an object. Thus, we cannot say that weight always means force or that it is incorrect to regard weight as mass. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The OP is not talking about mass versus force/weight, but rather force total (e.g. pounds) versus force-per-unit-area (e.g. psi). This is showing signs of becoming one of those tiresome discussions in which people try to show off their knowledge, so unless someone has something to say about what the guideline should look like, let's stop now. EEng (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think EEng knows what the original post is about: "The OP is not talking about mass versus force/weight, but rather force total (e.g. pounds) versus force-per-unit-area (e.g. psi)" is not a correct summary of the original post. Placing psi in the mass section of the table implies the unit would measure mass per square inch. But psi almost always refers to force per unit area. But there is neither a force section nor a pressure section in the table, so there is no place to put psi. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
You're absolutely right -- I somehow misremembered the OP and answered without even looking at it -- my apologies, I'm an idiot. However, this doesn't change the essential point here, which is that the table is not meant to be didactic or formal -- it's an eclectic list of units that (for some reason or another) have received MOS attention. The idea is to group them in a way that helps people find what they're looking for, as well as to group related units together, taking into account that most editors are technical laymen (or lay-women, though that sounds, somehow, not a nice thing to say). Notice the joint note on miles/mph/nautical miles.

Anyway, I've expanded the group names again to, I hope the satisfaction of all. And I repeat that we're here to discuss what the guideline should look like, so unless someone has a suggestion about that there's nothing to discuss. EEng (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

What defines a "non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom"?

There seems to be a policy exemption for metric notation for such articles. To put it more understandbly, is an article about internationally known and acclaimed actor John Rhys-Davies in that category, based on the fact that he is Welsh-born and presumably of British nationality?

The article gives Mr Rhys-Davies' height as 6 apostrophes and 1 quote, which is telling me exactly nothing. (Sorry - I din't yet get around to Googling it. The matter is mildly interesting since Mr Rhys-Davies played the Dwarf "Gimli" in one of his better known films). I normally would go on, Google it and change it to universally accepted and understandable metric notation but said policy exemption fills me with enough doubt to ask here first. Where exactly does this draconianly adhesive power of stone age units only known in certain backwater provinces end, as far as this Misplaced Pages guideline is concerned? Wefa (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say, yes, that article does count - it is non-scientific and there are clear national ties to the UK. But ultimately the call is up to the article talk page consensus: if there are reasons why this may not be the case, another conclusion may be reached.
You are incorrect when you suggest that metric units are "universally accepted and understandable" as measures for personal height. On the contrary, in the US and UK the common units are feet and inches, and the metric units are little-used outside the medical profession. As this is the English Misplaced Pages, people from these countries make up a large proportion of our audience. We have had long discussions on this page about how this should be dealt with, and this is the compromise that was reached.
However, note that:
  • Per MOS:CONVERSIONS, all measurements should include a conversion between metric and imperial/US customary units, so this should allow all readers to understand what is meant.
  • Notations such as 5'6" are explicitly deprecated by this guideline here.
I have corrected the article to an MOS-compliant format. Kahastok talk 16:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Nope - someone beat me to it. But they are now MOS-compliant. Kahastok talk 16:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Height is a kind of linear dimension, which is not in any way different from any other kind of linear dimension. Your position is that people in a certain country – thanks to decades of education in modern units of measure – have the ability to understand what, for example, 180 cm means in relation to any kind of object in the universe, except a human body. We are supposed to pretend that a strange sort of metric amnesia kicks in as soon as a human form comes to mind, and previously-intelligible information becomes incomprehensible. The medieval units are so "intelligible" that, even after living in this country for decades, I need to switch to decimal feet and multiply by 30 in my head to get a number that actually means something. It's also very disingenuous to elide the differences between the US and the UK – I can assure you that metric measurements are vastly more "universally accepted and understandable" in the latter than in the former. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
We follow common practice, not ideals. I (an American) recently had the chance to watch some UK true-crime shows, which was really a pleasure -- all those wonderfully well-spoken constables and inspectors addressing murder suspects and drunks with perfectly civilized courtesy. Anyway, one thing I can tell you for sure: when describing suspects they always gave feet and inches, not centimeters. That should tell you something about what registers best with the public. (Weight was sometimes so-and-so many "stone" and sometimes so-and-so-many "pounds", before you ask.) EEng (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Trashy reality TV has no bearing on the standards used by an encyclopedia. We need not copy the units used by these people any more than we should copy their grammar, solecisms and all, or their beliefs about cosmology. The only effect of that is to create a race to the bottom, and to pander to the lowest common denominator. In medical, academic and many athletic contexts, the metric units are indeed used, as they are in some entirely popular contexts . I don't see why an encyclopedia should follow the example of, say, the chavs who appear in reality TV over the example set by the country's health service, and other places. Good practice doesn't always mean pandering to the majority, but I guess this is falling on deaf ears. There is a depressing asymmetric burden here: people who show sources with good metric use are accused of "source-shopping", whereas anyone who points to examples of imperial use is impartially showing the units used in the UK.
Also, I doubt an American would give the height of anything in cm, whereas in the UK that would be quite common. It's the single exception for a certain dimension of a single kind of animal that strikes me as weird. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
"Trashy TV"? "race to the bottom"? "grammar, solecisms, cosmology"? "pander to lowest common denominator" -- do you honestly have no idea how ridiculous you sound, huffing and puffing like this? When UK officials want to express how tall someone is, in a context in which it really matters that the public understand immediately, they use feet and inches. If you truly don't see the significance of this, you are beyond the help of our paltry powers to enlighten. EEng (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I dispute that arguing against using the metric system is "enlightened" by any definition of the term that I understand. You are quite wrong to identify the use of imperial with official use: in official contexts the use of metric units is the norm. Even in the domain of transport, which is not known for being metric-friendly in this country, we have this . The NHS defines a bariatric patient as someone who weighs over 160 kg. But it would seem that I am merely source-shopping, or spreading lies invented by the UKMA. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
"I dispute blah blah 'enlightened' by any definition of the term that I understand blah blah". Can you try to use fewer words to express exasperation? No one is arguing for or against using the metric system, because WP doesn't prescribe or recommend what gets used -- it refelcts what's used, which is what we're discussing. And the context of that use is everyday communication among our lay readers, not formal regulations or medical definitions. All that's at stake here, anyway, is whether we'll give someone's height as "a ft b in (c cm)" versus "c cm (a ft b in)". Is that question of primacy really worth driving your BP up this many mm Hg? EEng (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I love it when my opponents describe my position as "blah blah". Now that we've descended to the level of three-year-olds, I think I can call an end to this. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the fundamental problem here is you're thinking in terms of "opponents". Anyway, glad to see we've reached agreement on one thing: this is a good time to stop. EEng (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't get the impression that EEng was talking about reality TV - even if you watch Crimewatch, they still use feet and inches for height. Even if he was though, and even if it was the sort of show you're talking about, I don't think we should be dismissing usage just because it's working class usage.
In a country where it's still not that uncommon to switch temperature unit with the season (hot days are Fahrenheit, cold days are Celsius), it shouldn't be a surprise that people might use different units for the same physical dimension in different contexts.
And as I've pointed out to you several times before, it's not like this advice is made up by editors. It is based on the exceptions to metrication given by the style guide of a publication with broadly the same aim as we have: to reflect the mix of units, in simple and relatively easy-to-follow terms, actually in use in the UK. Kahastok talk 12:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Difference is, nobody is seriously advocating for the use of the "Celsiheit" scale, because it's unprofessional and illogical, and doesn't belong in anything pretending to be a serious work of reference. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm neutral on the Fahrenheit/Celsius argument, but for non-scientific articles involving distances (lengths of lakes being a classic example where you have been changing to metric), the usual convention in the UK is to use miles. I don't see any advantage in putting kilometres first. Dbfirs 07:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The usual convention, yes. Plus the rule as it is written very clearly prefers miles for such distances. It isn't a 50/50 question or a matter of equal preference so default to the first edit. These distances should be miles first unless there is a very good reason in specific circumstances to use another unit. Kahastok talk 21:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
"the usual convention in the UK is to use miles" Are you offering any evidence for that? Do hydrologists and geographers in the UK use imperial or metric units? Can I get a straight answer to that question? What is "disruptive" is going through the game of pretending that imperial units are in use when the evidence for that is actually pretty weak. I'm a scientist, and I believe in evidence. Let's see what the facts say. (not even an effort to provide a conversion to imperial that I can see) (likewise, although older water level measurements are given in feet and inches) . So you could even argue that real-life usage is more metric than what I'm arguing for, because those sources don't even convert the metric units to the older units.
I'm willing to accept using the units that would be used in similar contexts in the real world, because, as I've been told in the past, Misplaced Pages tries to reflect real-life usage ("in reputable sources", or words to that effect). I don't believe this means following conventions that would have been used in the 1950s, and today are barely used outside the USA. I'm not arguing that we should start using metric units where they're not used in the UK (I've left roads well enough alone, for example) but I am arguing that we should use them where they are used. That's not unreasonable or disruptive. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
So basically, what you're saying is, you've just decided that what you want goes, and principles like consensus and guidelines like the MOS can go fuck themselves?
Yes, it is quite clearly disruptive to come up with your own standard, separate from that which you know has been agreed and set out in the MOS, and try to impose it on Misplaced Pages. Kahastok talk 17:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
That is a completely unfair paraphrase of my argument. I didn't say that I'd come up with the standard, because if I did, I'd try to change things like roads and railways to metric even when they're measured in miles, chains and yards. I said that geographers used a certain standard and asked you to prove me wrong. You responded to an evidence-based argument with invective. You talk about "principles like consensus", yet the consensus is artificially maintained in the face of serious and sustained disagreement by several editors, by your ignoring the evidence they present, and bullying them into giving up. You tell me with condescension that people will measure the same dimension in different units, dependent on context, then ignore that argument when it doesn't suit your purposes. You ridicule the idea that we might end up telling people to say that the 30 km long lake is 10 miles from the nearest town, but you are completely happy with the 6-foot man standing next to the 1.8 m shelf. You've argued that furlongs should be preferred in articles about horse racing in the UK, with which I don't disagree since furlongs are the main units used, but you dismiss the suggestion that kilometres should ever be the preferred units, even though overwhelmingly more things in the UK are measured in kilometres than furlongs. You've tried to argue that articles about railways are not necessarily engineering-related, because that meant that metric units could be kept at bay by an absurd loophole.
You've presented so many inane and irrelevant arguments in favour of preferring imperial units that your neutrality is seriously in doubt. Much of what you wrote in the past was just statement of personal opinion or possibly WP:OR, and you have practically taken ownership of the issue of UK metrication. I hold up my hands and admit that I have a huge bias in favour of SI units, but I would direct that bias towards making articles more metric when the relevant part of British life has become metric (the Times guide actually contains words to this effect, acknowledging the need to stay with the times and reflect metric units where they are used). Your bias takes the form of subtly privileging the views of people who either have an ideological opposition to metric units, or who are simply too intellectually lazy to learn how to use them properly. For example, the article on the lake in question also gave depths in feet, which was defended on its talk page. You did not get outraged by that, even though a literalist reading of the MOS would suggest that measuring depths in feet is just as impermissible as measuring lengths in kilometres. You were also so absurdly literalist in your interpretation of the Guardian style guide that you argued that adopting it as our standard would require us to measure fuel in pints.
In short, your hypocrisy is off the scale, whatever units you want to measure that in. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
There's a lot of bluster and a lot of huffing and puffing in there, much of it overblown, inaccurate and uncivil. But despite that you're very short on justification for deliberately trying to apply a standard to articles that runs directly against the global consensus as expressed by the manual of style. Kahastok talk 17:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Archon, you're way past the point of sounding crazy. There is no anti-metric conspiracy, at least not here at WP. (Hypocrisy, for the record, is generally measured in millicheneys.) EEng (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
There's also a lot of factual content there, which you ignored. If you want to put it in these terms then I at least tried to go for a level 5 or 6 argument. Maybe I only got to 4, whatever. Your responses are at best level 2 (criticising my tone), dropping steadily to 1 or 0 (calling me crazy, a kind of casual slur on mental illness which thankfully I don't have). You didn't even bother to contradict me. Of course it's no secret that other people have argued against your position in the past, Kahastok, but you were often pretty uncivil to them. For justification, I was able to produce four pieces of evidence, with a trivial amount of effort, for one lake. You've produced none. You're acting like the gatekeeper in this whole thing, as though any argument must pass your arbitrarily high standard, while you are not required to produce similarly rigorous arguments yourself. It's more like what you'd find in a kangaroo court than in a discussion among equals. I never called this a conspiracy, but I would call it an unwillingness to listen to inconvenient facts.
So how many things are measured in kilometres as opposed to miles IRL? Maybe it's 25%, maybe more. I don't know for sure, but it's at least meaningful question to ask. The MOS as written would seem to presume that it's 0%, which is simply wrong. Let's err on the side of caution, but let's not ignore facts; we can leave that to the creationists. Let's also leave out irrelevant arguments about kilofeet and such. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It all may depend on your age. As far as people's heights are concerned, in British schools in the 1950s we were taught feet and inches, and I still have to do a mental conversion when they are given in cm. I've just asked my 12-year-old neighbour and three of his friends what they are taught at school about people's heights, and they all said centimetres. --Stfg (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure they were - that's been standard since the seventies. I was also taught in centimetres at school, but having grown up, people my age would generally quote their height in feet and inches. You don't learn everything you learn in school.
Archon is no longer arguing feet and inches. He's arguing that we don't use miles. He seems to be now suggesting that there should be some form of quota, whereby 25% of instances should be kilometres and 75% miles or something similarly unworkable. We don't do that for dates, we don't do it for spelling, we don't do it for units related to any other country, or for any other unit related to the UK. Even in contexts that see far more variation than does miles for distance in the UK. The rule expressed at MOSNUM is easy to understand and easy to follow. Archon doesn't like it so he's trying to impose an entirely different standard, directly contrary to the global consensus expressed by MOSNUM. Kahastok talk 16:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Those were the days!
. . . when you had exercises like

The nominal weight of a truck of coal is 8 tons 10 cwt. the actual is 8 tons 18 cwt. If 10 percent profit be made by selling the coal by the truck at 22s. per ton nominal weight, what rate of profit will be made by retailing it at 22s. 8d. per ton actual weight.

If I recall correctly, that all stopped in the early 1970s – along with pounds, shillings and pence – except for learning to convert a few basic things from imperial units to metric so you could understand what your grandparents were talking about. --Boson (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
"He's arguing that we don't use miles." Please show me where I made such an absurd argument. I specifically said above that roads and railways are still normally measured in imperial units, for example. I was not arguing that 25% of roads and railways should randomly be flipped to metric, but that some non-negligible number of things are measured in metric. For example, most tramways.
I've never argued for a "quota" or anything so absurd. I gave 25% as a ballpark figure of metric distance measurement in the UK and said I had no idea what the actual level of usage was, but it's not zero. Nobody is suggesting we roll a dice to decide what the units are. By your own argument, it seems, you are arguing for a "quota" on height measurements, so if 10% of heights on WP are heights of people as opposed to objects, then we'd have a "quota" of 10% imperial and 90% metric. But I wasn't so uncharitable as to present your argument in that strawman form, because it's obviously silly. You're not arguing that mixing up imperial and metric for heights, dependent on context, creates an "unworkable" situation, which is why I say you have double standards. Like you said yourself, contextual relevance matters. For example, hiking trails in the UK are supposed to be given in metric-first, because that is the rule followed by the relevant Wikiproject, and in fact metric units are extensively used by hikers in the UK. Only in the US are they given in miles – DeFacto's latest incarnation got into trouble partly because he messed around with that, trying to put imperial first, and he annoyed some editors from the project.
This nonsense of "he's arguing don't use miles" and "quotas" are why I say your neutrality is doubtful. All you have done is misrepresent everything I've said in an attempt to make me look like an idiot or a liar.
"people my age would generally quote their height in feet and inches. You don't learn everything you learn in school." This is so subjective that I struggle to see why it's the basis for a policy. Maybe people would generally talk about land in acres, but the MOS doesn't prefer those over hectares. A policy needs to be guided by something a bit more solid than personal preference. Archon 2488 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbor tree-ish break

Let's remember that this page is for discussing possible changes to the text of the guidelines. So, can someone actually propose some change or addition? It can even be rough, provisional, or "not exactly, but you get the idea". Otherwise there's no point to this exercise. EEng (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Since we're down to name calling, I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in. My country (Australia) went through metrication the year I was born - 1966. My parents are quite used to metric but still think mostly in imperial (esp baby weights). My children think totally in metric and have to get a conversion app for "ye olde time" measurements. And I'm a hybrid, being officially taught metric in school but hearing all the adults taking in inches and feet - so I think in millimetres, inches, feet and metres. Anyway, it seems the argument boils down to the following about our readers:
  1. They're so dumb that they can not understand something like 90 cm (3 ft) .
  2. They understand 90 cm (3 ft) but prefer 3 ft (90 cm) .
  3. They understand 3 ft (90 cm) but prefer 90 cm (3 ft) .
  4. They're so dumb that they can not understand something like 3 ft (90 cm) .
Now 1 and 4 are obvious farcical and I'm just making a point by listing them (correct me if our readers really are that dumb). The real choice is between 2 and 3. But if they can understand both then it really makes little difference which we use and the choice comes down to aesthetics.
The UK is officially metric. Just like Australia, it takes time for the population to get used to it but each year they get more used to it - little by little.
So my 2 cents is that practically all UK articles should use metric first - since it is understood by practically all of our readers and the imperial measurements are right there beside the metric measurements for the readers that have a hard time with metric.
There will be some exceptions for things like horse heights (hands, followed by meters) but for things like lake lengths I think we should be consistent with other distance measurements - ie the same method for lake lengths, distance bewteen towns, lengths of rivers, etc.
Any way, that's my 2 cents.  Stepho  talk  09:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
There's a pretty major difference here and that is that whereas Australia completed metrication, the UK did not.
What does that mean? It means that in the case of distance, the population has never had to get used to kilometres. It's not like Australia where they changed all the distances and speeds on the roads into kilometres. In Britain, it's all still in miles. Ask a Briton the distance between towns in UK, and it doesn't matter whether the person you're asking in 8 or 80, they will almost certainly quote a distance in miles.
When it came to changing the old rule a few years ago, we had to decide what the most appropriate mix of units was. We wanted to reflect British practice in a few short, easy-to-follow rules. So instead of going by our personal preferences, we based the mix on units on that recommended by the style guide of a reputable British publication that also was aiming to reflect British practice in a few short, easy-to-follow rules. That didn't mean copying it by rote - we preferred Misplaced Pages's standard rules on conversions and suchlike - but it did mean using the same basic mix of units that they advise. That is the advice we currently have, and I see no good reason to change it. Kahastok talk 09:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
When was the old rule changed? I can find various discussions but haven't yet found any formal decisions. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2009-2010-ish I think.
The previous rule was that we should apply metric or imperial rigorously on each article, without expressing any preference as to which would be used on any given article.
This had a number of serious practical disadvantages. One was that it was wildly inconsistent as sister articles might refer to the same measurement in totally different units. Another was that it allowed no latitude for context - if a quoted distance in one place was in miles (as is standard), then a quoted temperature twenty paragraphs away had to be in Fahrenheit (rather than Celsius, which is standard), even though there is no intrinsic reason not to mix miles and Celsius. A third was that there was rampant gaming: editors would add a measurement in their preferred system to articles entirely in the other system, then declare the article to be inconsistent and convert every other unit in the article to be consistent with the one they just added.
The assumption seemed to be that the choice of system is always arbitrary, when in fact it's only very rarely arbitrary and there are clear patterns. Kahastok talk 13:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

One problem is that – other than for road distances and signs – miles are more widely used in colloquial or journalistic usage. The situation with personal weight and height is similar. The current guideline encourages editors to follow journalistic usage rather than the more formal usage of non-fiction books (including school text books), administrative regulations, encyclopaedias, etc. where metric units are more widely used. I suspect this aspect of the guideline is contributing to the endless, fruitless discussions.

To answer EEng, the guideline needs to be changed to reflect normal non-journalistic, non-colloquial usage, i.e.

  • the main units for distance/length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon;

should be changed to

  • the main units for road distances, road vehicle speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon;

I suspect

  • the main units for personal height and weight are feet/inches and stones/pounds;

should be removed completely, as it is mainly used in colloquial or journalistic contexts, which are inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. However, perhaps someone can indicate sources showing where such usage might be appropriate in a more formal, written context.

The footnote

should be removed, since it –at least implicitly – tells editors to follow journalistic style.

Previous discussions have got bogged down by being too all-encompassing, so I would suggest separate approval or otherwise of each of the three suggestions above. The suggested amendments are very simple and make the guidline shorter. Previous arguments that do not need repeating in detail can be seen here. --Boson (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose the first. The proposal is that we should invent, entirely on our own initiative, an entirely new split in British usage that has no basis whatsoever in real life. Given the lack of difference in usage in real life, it would be patently ludicrous for us to be put in a position where we are recommending that the distance from London to Edinburgh be reported as 400 miles by road but 500 kilometres point-to-point, as Boson proposes.
I would strongly oppose the second because the current rule reflects modern British usage in practice, and also the source that we used to base the advice on advises this. As EEng pointed out above, when the police tell people how tall someone is or how heavy they are in a way that British people need to understand, they will do it in feet/inches and stones/pounds.
I would strongly oppose the third because we should tell people where the system comes from. As it is we already have Archon telling us we made the whole thing up. We didn't. It came from The Times. And we should tell people that (I've proposed in the past that we make it more explicit). Boson always disputes this on the basis that we don't follow their advice on conversions (they don't always use them, we do), or on the extent of the advice (they use miles worldwide, we only apply this to the UK), but the argument misses the point completely. Obviously, it would be silly to override our rules on conversion, or to suggest that the rule for the UK should override the rule on Australian-related articles. But the basic system recommended is sound and essentially what we have here on UK-related articles.
Our current rules are based on an external style guide that is trying to do exactly the same thing as we are - reflect real British usage in a few short and easy-to-follow rules. We should be in the position of preferring the real life source that is trying to do what we're trying to do, rather than just making things up as we go along. What Boson is proposing is to change it to the point where we would be making it up as we go along, and I strongly oppose that on principle.
And the reason why this has come up so often has in the past been because of those who meet that definition of a "fanatic" - those who won't change their mind and won't change the subject. Remember that it's generally the same people pushing the same changes every time it comes up. We don't need change here, and there is no benefit to change here. Kahastok talk 20:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
"As it is we already have Archon telling us we made the whole thing up. We didn't. It came from The Times." – I never said you made anything up (I honestly have no idea what "the whole thing" refers to here); I said you were incorrect that kilometres are not used in the UK and I tried to provide some evidence to support my point. That has got me almost burned in effigy. The Times is not the sole authority on the units used in the UK.
"we would be making it up as we go along" – No, we'd form our own contemporary picture of what units are in use in the UK rather than carbon-copying someone else's, which was made several years ago for a different purpose (journalistic rather than encyclopedic). There's no shame in changing your mind if the evidence suggests you should; fanatics are people who refuse to do that. It's also the same people who always argue against any changes (mainly two particular editors). Other publications write their own style guides; why shouldn't we?
"we are recommending that the distance from London to Edinburgh be reported as 400 miles by road but 500 kilometres point-to-point" – Yet you're fine with saying, hypothetically, that someone hit their head on a 1.8-metre door frame because they were 6 feet tall? Don't you remember lecturing me that people use different units for the same dimension? Your insinuations that British people are almost uniquely incapable of understanding distances in kilometres are unhelpful, patronising and a bit offensive. My proposal is to prefer the units used officially, legally and in reputable sources; don't do armchair psychology about how British people think. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
First thing, you said above that " policy needs to be guided by something a bit more solid than personal preference", i.e. that we were making up as we went along. We weren't. Ironically, your proposal does appear to be guided by nothing more solid than personal preference.
You say that we wouldn't be making it up as we go along, rather that "we'd form our own contemporary picture of what units are in use in the UK". I see no substantive difference between the two statements. You are proposing we make up our own version of what we think British usage is, based on our own personal preferences, as opposed than relying on an outside source to determine that. Wikipedians as a rule abhor that kind of logic - on articles it is an affront to any one of a dozen different policies.
"There's no shame in changing your mind if the evidence suggests you should". Of course not, but there isn't any evidence to suggest that any change is needed. You can randomly cite websites that happen to use kilometres but that's patently not evidence - there were websites that used kilometres before and there are websites that use miles now.
You are proposing that we invent splits in usage that do not exist in reality. You are proposing that we massively increase the complication of this rule purely for reasons of personal preference. You cannot reasonably expect me to support that. Kahastok talk 21:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, so we're back where we started, with my unanswered question. What units do geographers and hydrologists use in the UK? I am not talking about righting great wrongs or following my own personal preferences; if I were, I'd expect all UK roads and railways to be measured in metric, when that is clearly not real-life practice. It is not at all fair to claim that considering "the units used officially, legally and in reputable sources" is equivalent to "making it up as we go along" or "personal preference" – that's absurd. A preference for measuring your own height in the old units is just that, a personal preference. I didn't cherry-pick some websites that happened to use metric units, as you are insinuating; I found some popular websites, yes, but also some papers that covered material relevant to the discussion we were having, to see what convention they used. As it turned out, they appeared to prefer metric units. That's perhaps not conclusive evidence, but it is evidence. You weren't so quick to dismiss the – much more anecdotal – evidence of the people in the TV show mentioned above, talking in stones and whatnot. I at least bothered to provide links. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
FWIW the Ordnance Survey system is thoroughly metric, and has been for a lifetime: grid squares 100 km on a side, coordinates in km or a decimal division thereof.—Odysseus1479 04:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
We strive to favour common usage, not ivory tower platitudes. RGloucester 05:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
"Ivory tower platitudes"? Are you trying to win an award for the most anti-intellectual comment in the discussion? "We dun needa listen t'them-thar eggheads, what with their science an'all". So if some unspecified group of people in some show about the police talk in feet and stones, that's the kind of usage we should be reflecting, but if an entire academic field uses metric units we can completely ignore it? Even the current version of the MOS says "...such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic..." and I'm not expanding too much on that. Of course, I am not going to cherry-pick a certain source and say we should base everything off of that because it happens to use metric units. One source cannot be representative of the usage of units in a large and diverse country – a point which seems to have been overlooked with the adoption of the Times style guide advice. Anyway, in many contexts in the UK it is "common usage" to measure distances in metric units (innumerable sporting events, orienteering, etc). It's not always good enough to say "IAR", because doing so leads to a protracted battle every time, often with editors who are unaware of the context of the rules. Are we allowed, for example, to consider the common practice in the sporting discipline in question, when talking about an athlete's weight? Archon 2488 (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you in many respects, as that's not what I meant. In fields where it makes sense to use metric, we use metric, based on the principle of common usage. However, for matters of distance, common usage at large tends to favour Imperial by virtue of people's main exposure to distance measurements, road distances. We can't be a perfect mimic here, and some people will always be left out (common doesn't imply "all"). We have to choose with editorial discretion which units to favour, as it is a tough choice. RGloucester 16:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm opposed to guideline stating any such thing (regardless of facts), as that would be the "straitjacket" that we don't need. There is no need to be overly prescriptive. We already have WP:IAR for important and justified exceptions, and we also have the footnote here. RGloucester 00:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
All road measurements in the UK are quoted in imperial units in The Highway Code and likewise in government legislation. Hence all distances, speed zones, car odometers etc are set in miles. Rule should be that the first measurement is given in that of the home country of the article, so the M1 motorway should be quoted in miles, the Pacific Highway (Australia) in kilometres.
A 17-year old going for their drivers licence in the England is still going to need to know about miles, so unlike in Australia where those who still speak in imperial units are likely to only be people 60+, not so in the UK. Octo45 (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the "length" issue, are we really saying that the main unit for length is always the mile? So the length of my desk is perhaps 1 millimile? Length and distance aren't quite the same concept; the height of a person and the height of an object are the same concept, so the distinction there is if anything much finer. Archon 2488 (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's going to think, oh, it says use miles for length so let's invent a unit for very short ones. OTOH, there will be people trying to enforce their own personal preferences by construing anything as a length instead of as a distance: my message below works as a response to yours. Kahastok talk 18:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: this edit.

The original words "/length" were added as part of a series of edits in early April. It was my tweak to another editor's wider change, which added the words "distance" and "speed". The word "length" is as well-established as the word "distance" to within no more than about four hours, over two months ago.

It would seem absurd to say that lengths ought to be in kilometres but distances ought to be in miles, as that edit seems to imply. The distinction between the two is so small that trying to draw such a distinction makes life unnecessarily difficult for editors. When you measure from one end of Loch Ness to the other, are you measuring the length of the lake, or the distance from one end to the other? Would it make a difference if what we're describing is not long and thin, but round-ish or irregularly shaped (say, Anglesey)? Are we really supposed to measure the length of the Severn in kilometres but the distance between two bridges along the river in miles? It makes no sense to draw such a distinction. Kahastok talk 18:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That isn't just what length is. Many length measurements are commonly taken in cm, mm, and so forth. Distance measurements are usually in Imperial, but length is more up in the air. It wasn't wise to add length. That's a straitjacket that we don't need. RGloucester 18:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It's no more a strait jacket than any of the other rules in that section.
I simply don't believe that people are going to think, ah MOSNUM says use miles for length so we have to write that the length of the table is 0.0012 miles - any more than they are going to think, MOSNUM says use miles for distance so we have to write that the distance from the table to the sofa is 0.0006 miles. And I think such short lengths and distances are likely to be far rarer on the sorts of articles we write on Misplaced Pages than the geographical-scale lengths and distances that we generally discuss. Kahastok talk 18:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
For smaller lengths especially, it doesn't make sense to specify imperial (I'm not concerned about the miles misinterpretation. I'd also like to clarify that there is no such thing as ".0012 miles". Imperial doesn't use decimals, it uses fractions and mixed units.) We don't generally use the barleycorn (unit), we use mm and cm. RGloucester 19:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed: this is why decimal miles are not very useful as a measurement. As someone who was never taught to use imperial units systematically, anything beyond simple fractions like "half a mile" (which I can easily convert to 800 m in my head) is not much use to me. I don't have any intuitive picture of what the stuff to the right of the decimal point means, because it doesn't correspond to any unit at all. 5.2 km is obviously just 200 m beyond 5 km, both of which have an immediate meaning to me; 5.2 miles is a much more vague concept in my head... 5 miles is 8 km, but 200 "millimiles"? Archon 2488 (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Easy. It's 5 1⁄5 miles. Just under 5 1⁄4 miles. But you're using an intuitive scale in kilometres. I would suggest that most Brits are doing the opposite. 5.2 km is 5 1⁄5 km, sure, but what's that? You can convert 5 km to 3 miles or so, but I think you'd struggle to know how much over 3 miles.
You'll doubtless tell me I'm claiming that people don't know what kilometres are. I'm not. But knowing what a kilometre is does not give you a clear and intuitive idea what 5.2 km is, given that you never actually need to use kilometres in day-to-day life (and you don't). Kahastok talk 21:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Where would one become used to thinking in fifths of a mile? How many British road signs use such fractions? In practice it would be given as 350 yards (good luck getting that from "0.2 miles"). Interestingly, there are now many signs with "thirds" of a mile – this isn't at all a traditional fraction of a mile, but it is suspiciously close to 500 m.
It's pretty doubtful whether you "need" to use miles either; for most people in daily life it's enough to think about distances in terms of expected travel times, and absolute distances are a rather more abstract concept. If you asked the average person how big certain geographical features are, whether in miles or kilometres, you'd be bound to get all sorts of interesting and bizarre answers. I remember meeting someone who seemed to think that Glasgow and Edinburgh were 150 miles apart (admittedly, not a local). Archon 2488 (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it says "miles", not "barleycorns" or "inches".
Perhaps, if others think this is a major problem (and as I say, I don't), we should say something like, "distances/lengths of geographical scale", or "distances/lengths of appropriate magnitude"? Kahastok talk 19:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Even if you use "distance", that would presumably include things like the circumference of the earth. I would change it to "road distances", and you can then think up some specfic distances where imperial units should also be used and we can consider whether to add them. Perhaps things like "national distances between towns". --Boson (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
How many non-scientific, non-engineering-related articles that have strong national ties to the United Kingdom, refer to the circumference of the Earth? I believe this is a straw man. I believe you're positing a situation that does not and will never occur.
I remain strongly opposed to splitting hairs into ever smaller parts as you propose. The idea that we should start creating long lists of contexts in which we use miles and long lists in which we use kilometres would make this far more complicated than it needs to be, with no eventual benefit to the reader whatsoever. I remain strongly opposed to getting into a situation where we would have to measure a distance along the road in miles and compare it against a point-to-point distance (or a distance along a lake or river or whatever else) measured in kilometres. Nobody benefits from making this more complicated than it needs to be.
And perhaps more relevant to our current discussion. Why, in your opinion - and it presumably is your opinion because otherwise you would not have made this edit given objections raised - do you think it sensible and rational for our articles to refer to the length of the River Severn in kilometres while giving intermediate distances along the river in miles? Kahastok talk 19:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Another question is how you deal with smaller distances; 450 m or 9⁄32 mile? Where is the cutoff point at which it becomes impermissible to use metres? Is it 1 kilometre, 1 mile, or elsewhere? Archon 2488 (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
If we have something like distance/length of appropriate magnitude or distances/lengths of geographical scale, then the question goes to the article talk page as to whether an instance is "of geographical scale". My inclination would be to say that, as a rule of thumb - and absolutely not as hard policy - if you have to be so precise as to refer to 9⁄32 mile as opposed to 1⁄4 mile - and most instances you won't be - you might want to reconsider giving the distance/length solely in miles. Kahastok talk 21:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I could equally well ask you why you apparently think that articles on British topics should give the length of Swedish dildos and Norwegian planks in miles, but I won't.
This part of the guideline is a mess and needs rewriting to avoid the problems that are not of my making. If you often need to compare imperial distances with other things (lengths, areas, volumes, etc.) the really obvious solution would seem to be to use metric for everything. I don't think the problem arises that often, so I am happy to leave road distances in miles, but if it is a real problem, the solution is obvious. If you have two different systems, you are bound to encounter minor problems at the interface.
I'm not sure what you mean by "given objections raised". You made a bad change without consensus. When it was noticed, it was reverted. At first I tried to assume that the actual change in meaning must have been inadvertent but, your repeated reverts suggest that it was quite deliberate. Who raised objections?
I think the lesser evil is to use the words "road distances" and am open to suggestions to change the remaining text so as to indicate that imperial units may be permissible or preferred in some other circumstances. I agree that we don't want a straightjacket, so we should be vague enough to allow as much editorial judgement as is appropriate. To write "distances" without qualification is to impose a "straighjacket". --Boson (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
You have written up the guideline so that the length of the Severn has to be written up in kilometres but the distance from the Severn Bridge to Gloucester, measured along the river has to be written up in miles. This is something that is going to happen, and similar issues are going to arise on just about every article on a UK river that Misplaced Pages has. On what basis do you think this appropriate?
Anyone who did really measure a plank in miles would be violating WP:POINT, but I have proposed ways to avoid the highly unlikely case of people genuinely thinking that planks have to be measured in miles. No-one has expressed any issue with those proposals, and they make far more sense than creating new distinctions.
You say that we don't want a strait jacket but what you propose is a strait jacket. You say you want to split road distances from the distances we're comparing them with. Again, this is going to come up in dozens of articles. We have a rule that people already say is complicated, you propose we increase the complication by orders of magnitude, by inventing novel divisions in usage that have no real-life basis. You should not be surprised when I oppose strongly this. We don't need to go there as all issues raised can easily be resolved by making it clear that "distance/length" doesn't apply to contexts where miles are too large to be sensible. Kahastok talk 21:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Then address the problems that you see directly. If you frequently do want to compare road distances with the length of a river, then perhaps we do need to specify both in kilometres. You are basically saying the same except expressing both in miles. You just move the problem down the road. Next comes the problem of specifying the length and breadth of an area , so you have to specify areas in square miles, then you have to get rid of hectares, and so on. I feel as if I am talking to someone who has nailed one foot to the floor and is now complaining at having to walk round and round in circles. We can easily leave more to editorial judgement. If you don't regard it as a battleground between metric and imperial it is less of a problem. We should, of course, not forget that we are only talking about which units to put first. When two values are compared it may be appropriate to adjust the order to make the comparison simpler. --Boson (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I do think your idea of qualifying what you meant by length is an improvement, though I still think it is sub-optimal. I would prefer to leave in my restriction to road distances (since this is closer to actual formal prose usage) and counter any problems by permitting greater editorial judgement, possibly recommending changing the order in which the units are presented in comparisons). --Boson (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be better if you waited for a consensus before making changes, and I think it would be appropriate for you to self-revert. As regards your last change, I don't think it is appropriate. It now states

  • "the main units for distance/length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon; "

with a footnote

  • "This does not include short distances or lengths, where miles are too large for practical use."

This still suggests that lengths should normally specified primarily in miles (oh, except where miles are not practical). So it is not asinine, but it does not reflect UK usage and it is not based on any source, such as "The Times Style Guide", which is otherwise your mantra. It is also not what is enshrined in legislation etc. – which partially explains why it does not reflect usage. It is (some) distances, not lengths, that are permitted or required to be specified in imperial units. So I would suggest again removing the word "length", which you added without consensus, and changing the text to

  • "the main units for road distances, road vehicle speed and fuel consumption are miles (and yards, where appropriate), miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon

and adding a footnote expressing something like:

  • "Distances which are similar to road distances, such as distances between towns in a non-technical geographic context may also have imperial units specified first. Where road distances are compared with lengths or other distances that would normally be specified in metric units, the order in which the units are specified may be reversed so as to simplify comparison. Depending on whether the road distance or the other length is the centre of attention, either imperial or metric units may be specified first."

I think that deals with the problems you raised concerning comparisons while retaining the link to actual usage and removing some of your straightjackets. It also deals with the problem of technical usage by "geographers" where imperial units are not usual, and it also mentions yards, which were mysteriously omitted to date. It could probably be condensed a bit, but it is not that long, considering the various problems it solves.--Boson (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC) --Boson (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It is still based on the Times - but somehow I don't think those who drafted the Times guide ever believed that anyone would even consider giving the distance across a room in miles. I would not have believed it either - still don't - but multiple editors have insisted that they will. My latest deals with that non-issue. Fact is, length is so similar to distance, that it is illogical to try and divide them up.
Saying it can be either with no preference is a bad mistake. The "can is not must" argument rears its ugly head again: we would certainly have editors going from article to article saying that because MOSNUM is not worded to outright prefer miles, they're perfectly welcome to mass-convert articles to kilometres. There are editors who do almost nothing but push the metric system in this way.
I note that when this is brought up in UK-related forums (such as the RFC at WP:UKGEO last year), we tend to get a strong consensus for the status quo among UK-based editors. This is because this is what is in use in practice in the UK, and - as a rule and on articles where the gamers haven't got there first - on Misplaced Pages.
I remain strongly opposed to this notion that miles should only be used for road distances. We should be basing our rules on actual usage, not just legislation. It creates far more problems than it solves (I can't see it actually solves anything at all). And bear in mind that if an article is genuinely scientific in nature, then this rule does not apply anyway. Kahastok talk 06:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
"Actual uaage" is of course itself problematic and "Our current rules are based on an external style guide that is trying to do exactly the same thing as we are" is also questionable as it is now over 11 years old. I rather like the Guardian style guide. - note what it says about square measurements, which has been one of the bones of contention in part because we don't specifically deal with it. I think we should. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Though that is also journalistic usage, it would be a considerable improvement on The Times Style Guide. As it is, you have to ignore most of what The Times Style Guide says, anyway, and try to guess what it really means. Sorry, if I am treading on the toes of whoever put it in in the first place. Ceterum censeo notam delendam esse. --Boson (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand this comment. For example, the Guardian's instruction on volume is "We use the metric system for weights and measures; exceptions are... the pint", without qualification or exception - only to later say that "two litres of wine" does not need to be converted into pints at all. The Times' instruction begins, "The main exceptions to metric should be pints of beer and cider..." in a special "Volume" section. Of the two, it would be the Guardian that would cause me more concern about having to "try to guess what it really means". Kahastok talk 21:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Not difficult to understand: I agree that The Guardian style guide has its faults, but it is still the lesser evil. I have said before, and I will say again, that we should remove reference to all journalistic style guides, so I will not attempt to defend The Guardian Style guide – except to prefer it to an even worse one. But I don't see much point in discussing whether you have to ignore or creatively interpret 120 words in one style guide and only 7 words in the other.--Boson (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Help! We now have two parallel subsections proceeding at once! EEng (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbor tree-ish break #2

Someone stop me if I'm wrong, and I thought I brought this up earlier, so sorry if I'm repeating. Isn't it true that (taking just one example, personal height) no matter what, we're gonna give it both in feet/inches and centimeters -- it's just a matter of which is "primary"? That is, we're either gonna write

He was 6 ft 4 in (193 cm) tall

or

He was 193 cm (6 ft 4 in) tall

-- right? I'm not saying it doesn't matter which comes first -- for some strange reason, it really does seem like that needs to be right -- but perhaps it will help lower the temperature here if everyone keeps in mind that it's not like only one or the other will be given to the reader. EEng (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Right! As I wrote above:
  • "We should, of course, not forget that we are only talking about which units to put first. When two values are compared it may be appropriate to adjust the order to make the comparison simpler."
To put it another way: consistency between articles and consistency within articles are both reasonably important objectives, so it makes sense to suggest the normal order (and get it "right"), but other goals or special circumstances may make it sensible to reverse that order, even if it creates inconsistency. That is what editorial judgement is for.
--Boson (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Last year's UKGEO RfC, among other things, makes it clear to me that "road distances" should NOT be specified. Usage is mixed, and there is no reason to advocate a change in the guideline at this time. As someone in that RfC said, whether one uses miles or metres with regard to geography is a matter of who one asks. RGloucester 13:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
If you mean this RfC, it looks to me like a very good reason for very clearly separating the recommendations for road distances and other lengths/distances. Just look at some of the comments at that RfC where many editors thought that allowing primary SI units for other distances or lengths would mean that they would also be used for road distances – possibly as a result of abusive interpretation of the guideline. Writing a rule explicitly for road distances helps prevent that. The RfC was, of course, a good example of how not to formulate and run an RfC and how collaboration should not work, but that is another issue. —Boson (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Many of the points made at that RfC are simple. We need to avoid WP:CREEP, while also maintaining common usage in our guidelines. The status quo, excusing the addition of "length", does that. RGloucester 16:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
At first, I misread your period as a colon, i.e as meaning that people at that RfC argued for avoidance of instruction creep! I thought we must be talking about two different RfCs. What most seemed to be arguing was that lack of clarity would lead to abuse by metric-pushers.--Boson (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • SI is the official system used in teh UK, so Misplaced Pages should follow the SI brochure guidelines for all UK related articles. JJada (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, nothing is as simple as "System S is official for everything in Country C". Do you imagine the British Army measures boot sizes in centimeters? -- and if it does I'll be happy to supply 5 other counterexamples. And even if there really were some universal from-on-high attempt to impose some system, if actual practice is different, that's what we'll follow, regardless of what officials are trying to do. EEng (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I think a lot of our military clothing comes in metric sizes, including mondo-sized boots (the same system that is used for ski boots etc). Archon 2488 (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
These articles will be used by students to help with their studies, so we should use modern units that they are familiar with. JJada (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SEASON

There's been lengthy discussion at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Kronan (ship)/archive1 regarding the relevance of WP:SEASON. Also, see follow-up discussion here and some of the debate spilling over to Talk:Mary Rose#Poor_writing. I'd like to float the question of how far it is reasonable to adhere strictly to the recommendation to not use seasonal time references. For example, is it really advisable to simply remove seasonal terms in statements like "during the spring of 1754" so that it just reads "during 1754"? How narrow should "appropriate when related to the point being made" be interpreted? To me, it seems reasonable that any seasonal activity that is apparent in the context (sailing seasons, harvests, etc). And how far is it really appropriate to assume that readers are confused about references to "winter" or "summer" in an article that is geographically limited? In an article like forestry or galley it seems very sensible to assume that unspecified seasons can be ambiguous, but does this argument really extend to early modern Scotland?

As someone who writes a lot about early modern history, I'd also like to point out that it might be appropriate if WP:SEASON showed more leeway with regards to pre-modern historical article. For example, an event in the 16th century isn't always as strictly defined as events in the 19th century on account of the sources available. This is even more true if we go back to the medieval or ancient events.

Peter 06:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should allow for the fact that the article might be reorganize in the future, but retain references to seasons. Or, a reader might just read the section of the article the reader is interested in, rather than the whole article. The reader might not be aware that Swedish warships of that era stayed in European waters, unlike somewhat later ships of superficially similar construction that sailed all over the world. The reader might come upon a seasonal term before reading about the limited range of the ship. Thus I don't think this particular article should use seasonal references.
Does the above passage

I'd also like to point out that it might be appropriate if WP:SEASON showed more leeway with regards to pre-modern historical article. For example, an event in the 16th century isn't always as strictly defined as events in the 19th century on account of the sources available. This is even more true if we go back to the medieval or ancient events.

mean that a source may just say "winter of 1664–65" and no more precise date is available? In that case, it may be necessary to add a footnote explaining the possible date range, since 17th century definitions of seasons in a particular region and language may be different than modern definitions (and even in modern Europe and North America there are a few definitions to choose from). Jc3s5h (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I live in Australia and expressions like 'during the summers of 1679–86' for me cause me to think of Dec-Feb (Australian summertime). I then have to pause for a moment while I rethink it. The rethink isn't hard in most cases but it does stop whatever train of thought the article was talking about. In some cases (eg if the ship was somewhere near or below the equator) then it is ambiguous if 'summer' means the Northern hemisphere summer as experienced by the writer or the local summer at the location.
To readers like me who have little knowledge of diving or ship building, there is no link between diving and summer or log cutting and winter. If the link is important then it is better to spell it out for us. If it is not important then it can be left out.
If the only reliable references just say 'summers of 1679–86' (ie no specific months given) then we get the choice of several bad alternatives
  1. Leave it as 'summer', hope the context is good enough and that us poor southerns will put up with it.
  2. Convert it to 'June-August of 1679–86' and assume the reference didn't mean July-Sept or May-June or May-Sept or similar.
  3. Convert it an awkward expression like 'summers (circa June to August) of 1679–86'
  4. Drop the season and let the reader think diving happened during winter time as well.
If a source gives exact months then always put them in instead of 'summer'. If the source does not give months but you know that diving only happens during June-August (or whatever months are good for diving), then I'd write in those months. If you can't work out the most likely months but the context makes it pretty clear that it is in the northern hemisphere, then I'd take the first option as the lesser of evils. And lastly, if the context isn't clear about whether it is the northern or southern summer then you will have to do some research and then spell it out, even if the wording is awkward.
To summarize, try to pin it down as tight as you can without making the wording painfully awkward.  Stepho  talk  15:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I've implemented some of the suggestions in Kronan (ship). If complete clarity is the aim of WP:SEASON, I don't see how awkward language can be avoided. It seems to me like this guideline was originally intended as a recommendation to use specific dates, but when applied very strictly in FACs, it seems to have become a prohibition against mentioning seasons at all, regardless of context.
It's also based on the very specialized instance of readers who can locate specific sections, but can't be assumed to read anything beyond that. It's literally the exact opposite argument of other MoS guidelines like WP:OVERLINK ("a link should appear only once in an article" .
Peter 05:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Nbsp only before symbols? (Eg, not for before byte?)

"Except as shown in the "Specific units" table below, a space appears between a numeric value and a unit name or symbol. In the case of unit symbols, <!--<<restriction of nobreak markup to symbols, not full unit names, seems to be implied by earlier text in this guideline--> &nbsp;". Just to be clear, MB for megabyte would be a symbol but megabyte isn't and should not be prefixed with nbsp? I can't see logic in that and was that just assumed? And if this is really the intention of the MOS, then it doesn't follow it here itself: "100,000,000,000&nbsp;byte) hard drive". Jeh reverted . I will fix it if this is really the intention, but I took a long time the first time around and I would rather not spend more time on it if I was right all along. comp.arch (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In the case of a long number followed by a long unit name, the total length of the text can get rather long and may have to be broken by the software in spite of the nbsp. If the nbsp is added, it might break in a place that is even worse than between the number and the unit name. If the software doesn't force a break, the large amount of white space at the end of the preceding line may be unsightly. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, "100,000,000,000 byte) hard drive" should use a hyphen, not either sort of space, as it's a pair of words forming an adjective. This is spelled out elsewhere on this page. I think some fixes need to be made to the examples here. Jeh (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
btw, comp.arch: I didn't simply revert your change. I took rather a long time on it, finding every use of nbsp and correcting, or not. (There may yet be some uses of number-space-symbol that should be changed to nbsp, but I expect that in your zeal you got all of those.) I also fixed up the uses of "gaps" that included the full unit name in the parameters, changed spaces to hyphens where the use was an adjective, etc. So I don't think there's much left in that area for you to "fix." Jeh (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
"21{{nbsp}}million 21{{nbsp}}million" is not an exception because there is no unit there, symbol or spelled out; "21" and "million" are both part of the number, and we would not want a line break between them any more than we'd want one after any of the commas in "21,000,000". Jeh (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
{{convert}} has some detailed rules on this. See Help:Convert#Wrapping_and_line_breaking. -DePiep (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Not commenting on any of the above specifically, but I want to say that there are many places where nbsp and such issues aren't addressed, though they should be. Absence of a statement re nbsp really means nothing. EEng (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

STRONGNAT questions for biographies

It seems that STRONGNAT has not considered biographies for its explanation and examples, so questions should be answered to gain some consensus that can be used for bios.

  • Are the person's ties to non-English countries relevant for STRONGNAT?
  • Does STRONGNAT really mean "stronger ties," when a person had strong ties to more than one English-language country?
  • Should citizenship be a major or minor factor for STRONGNAT?
  • Should their career notability and place where they became most notable be a major or minor factor for STRONGNAT?

In general, for biographies, what are the key details that should be used? --Light show (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:STRONGNAT and MOS:TIES are for selecting which variety of English to use. Ties to non-English countries are therefore irrelevant. For any remaining ties to multiple countries with different varieties you will have to make a judgement call about which one dominated that person's life. E.g if they were born in England but migrated to the US when they were 2 years old then US English would be used. But if they were born in England, did lots of notable work in England and then migrated to the US when they were 69 years old, then UK English would be better. There will probably be cases where it is hard to choose - in which case toss a coin and stick to it. WP:RETAIN says that once a variety has been chosen then we should stick to it unless there is consensus to change. STRONGNAT would have to overwhelming (ie not a 50/50 case) to override RETAIN.  Stepho  talk  23:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Can that explanation be added to the MOS, since there are countless examples of people who have clearly stronger ties to one English country than another? It might help avoid disputes such as for Einstein's DRN. --Light show (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
We could add to the MOS, "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For biographies, citizenship to an English speaking country denotes a strong national tie, over citizenship to a non English speaking country."--JOJ 17:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:STRONGNAT is a section of MOS:NUM (this subpage). It concerns date format, not variety of English.
WP:TIES or MOS:TIES is a section of WP:MOS (parent of this page). It concerns varieties of English, not date format. --P64 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of RfC

Talk:Albert Einstein#RfC: date format in this article requests community input on the date format (DMY/MDY) to be used in that article. The issue concerns the application of WP:STRONGNAT, WP:RETAIN and WP:DATERET to that article. It's the issue mentioned above, in the previous section. --Stfg (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Writing "7 feet 0 1/4 inch"?

For 84.25 inch, do we write: 7 ft 1⁄4 in or 7 ft 0+1⁄4 in? -DePiep (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It would always be the former. I don't know of any case where you'd write a vulgar fraction with a leading zero; that applies only to decimal fractions (you write 0.5 rather than .5, but 1/2 rather than 0 1/2 – you say "zero point five" but never "zero and a half"). Archon 2488 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't we write 214 cm? :) Or 84.25 inches (2,140 mm)? Where does this odd number come from? In case you must have the other format, 7 ft 1⁄4 seems ok to me. The three value frac format is to add whole numers and would seem to me not needed with a "zero whole part" (with or without feets). comp.arch (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
To show the converted-unit-first, use "disp=flip" as in:
   • {convert|84.25|in|mm|disp=flip} → 2,140 millimetres (84.25 in)
However, people could hard-code the conversion to show "0" with inches. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
It's only an odd number to those unfamiliar with British railway history. See Great Western Railway, Broad gauge#History and Railway Regulation (Gauge) Act 1846. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
re Comp.arch: I am only interested in the "'0' yes/no?" format question. Background: it originates from a railway track gauge designed and improved by I.K. Brunel in the early 1800s. This talk shows involved editors who prefer adding the "0". It also mentions a source (MacDermot, 1927) that has the zero written. -DePiep (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no insight other than personal opinion, but when I was thinking about the issue for {{convert}}, I decided the "0" should be omitted:
  • {{convert|84.25|in|ftin|frac=4}} → 84.25 inches (7 ft 1⁄4 in)
  • {{convert|84.25|in|ftin|abbr=off|frac=4}} → 84.25 inches (7 feet 1⁄4 inch)
Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Given that you have seen most conversion numbers & issues of us all, I tend to conclude that the issue is not that big or widespread. More like a on-off blip (probably by the 1927 source). Not a common writing. -DePiep (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
A Google search for "broad gauge" 7' (with quote marks as shown) finds several reputable sources (including Princeton University, and The Broad Gauge Society, using a leading zero. A search for "broad gauge" "7' 0 1/4" finds more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
That would mean it is done more often for this one measurement, right? It could be following the 1927 source (btw MacDermot also uses periods in "ft. in."). I was hoping to find whether it is a common writing for imperial units. Now googling for 0½ inch gives some many hits, but not convincingly to make it a MOS/standard. -DePiep (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Allowing either "0" or not: Once we found those multiple sources with "0+1⁄4" then obviously we should remove restrictions, or just have the wp:MOS state how either form is acceptable, just as gun caliber typically omits the lead zero for dozens of ".44 Magnum" or ".45 Colt" or ".357 Magnum" etc. Anyway, I have created a {convert/old} unit-code "ftinfrac0" to show the lead "0" as in:
   • {convert/old|214|cm|ftinfrac0} → Template:Convert/old
   • {convert/old|84.25|in|ftinfrac0} → Template:Convert/old
Some people seem to think the role of the wp:MOS is to advise the whole world how they have been writing with the wrong styles for centuries, but at least Misplaced Pages has enough intelligent users to broaden the consensus to match reality and not confuse people by claiming .357 caliber should be written as "0.357" or some other obnoxious stupidity. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It's hardly obnoxious stupidity to insist on putting a zero before a decimal point, as only an innumerate person would want to do otherwise. However, .357 is the name of the item in question. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Archon, you said, ".357 is the name" as if it were not a measurement, but .357 caliber is about one-third inch, where {convert|.357|in|mm|3}} = .357 inches (9.068 mm), as the diameter of the bullet inside the cartridge. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand that it's a measurement, but my point is that ".357", without the leading zero, is the conventional name of the gun (strictly speaking, the name of the calibre). It's a nominal size that doesn't in every instance have to correspond to the actual diameter of the barrel or the bullet (or anything, because nominal sizes like "700C" can be weird like that), but regardless we should stick with the name that is used in the real world. For general measurements, the MOS requires a leading zero, as is proper. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
First of all, a calibre is the exception to {convert} calculation because it does fixed 'names'. The calibre 'numbers' are id's, are iconic. They are tabular, not calculated. Coincidentally, rail gauges (track widths) sometimes are too. E.g., the Chenmnitz (Germany) defined rail gauge "915 mm" is the 3 ft gauge, otherwise converted as "914 mm" (rounded more correctly).
Secondly, my original question is: write the zero yes or no. OK, so far I have seen many instances that do. But I am not convinced that it is a habit in imperial writing. My conclusion here is: it is written this way, but it is not a standard way. -DePiep (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
In the United States, where English measurements are often used for field events (e.g. shotput, discus, and high jump) at track and field meets, the zero is often shown, maybe almost always. See this page, this page, and this page, which are among the first four Ghits in a search for high jump results 7'0"1/4. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
That's not strictly relevant to this issue because it appears they are used to a shorthand expression and write simply "High Jump: 7-2 1/4 (2.19)" (exactly like that, with no formatting). That makes a great deal of sense because athletics people probably think of the value as three words (feet, inches, fractional inches), so they would include zero. With "proper" formatting, it would make sense to include the zero if numbers are shown in tabular form, and I think Wikid77 is correct that some would include a zero and some wouldn't, and there is no need to impose a standard. In the case of a specific railway gauge, reliable sources might resolve what is "best". Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Anyway, fractions can have a lead "0" in text: And for years, Template:Convert has allowed showing a "0" with a fraction, such as:
         • {convert|0+1/8 |m |ft }} → 0+1⁄8 metre (0.41 ft), or
         • {convert|0+1/8|m|ft|disp=flip}} → 0.41 feet (0+1⁄8 m)
    Also zero with fractional inches:
         • {convert|7 |ft |0+1/4 |in |m }} → 7 feet 0+1⁄4 inch (2.140 m), or
         • {convert|7|ft|0+1/4|in|m|disp=flip}} → 2.140 metres (7 ft 0+1⁄4 in)
    As with .30 caliber, the lead "0" can be omitted. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we need a reminder here that the point of a leading zero in a decimal fraction is to avoid having a leading decimal point. This is standard in engineering and science lest the decimal point be overlooked; in other contexts this is not a big deal (e.g., "20 caliber" is hardly ambiguous). But a zero in front of proper fraction just looks silly. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I haven't been following this but I want to add this tidbit: it's not hard to find 19th C engineering sources discussing e.g. a gauge "6 feet 0 1/8 inch" and so on.
Look, let me say this. To a first approximation the time to add to MOS guidance on some point is when it becomes apparent that doing so will avoid rehashes, on page after page or in project after project, of the same issue. So far I see no evidence of that. So why don't we let this get hashed out locally a few places, and if becomes a recurring waste of time the High Court of MOS can rule. Until then this seems like an argument to settle a problem that isn't arising. EEng (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Need some extra advice for currencies

If one uses an abbreviation of million or billion as part of mentioning an amount of money, such as ten billion US dollars, does one write it "$10bn" or "$10 bn"? Should the abbreviation be spaced from the number or not? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

MOS:NUMERAL says that it should be unspaced, and gives the example of £10M. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed that part. Perhaps it should be mentioned in the currencies section too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Consistent style for this guideline?

I'm don't agree with this edit by User:D'Ranged 1, in which the user changed instances of "meter" to "metre" except where specifically identified as US spelling. If this were an article, this edit would have been appropriate. But since both spellings are allowed in articles, it may be better to use both spellings in this guideline to let readers know both spellings are allowed.

If we decide to be consistent, we should use the "meter" spelling because that is the spelling used in the first version of the guideline. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the obsession with imposing spelling that is only used in the United States on the rest of the English-speaking users of Misplaced Pages. Nor do I understand mixing the two spellings, which to my mind, creates confusion, because in the international spelling, "meter" is a measurement device, and "metre" is the unit of measurement. Mixing the two without adequate explanation likely isn't "better", but probably confuses users who are used to these distinctions. I have long felt that it is a particular form of American arrogance to continue to insist on "our way" in the English Misplaced Pages. For pity's sake, the science article on Kilogram uses U.S.-only spellings for international scientific terms. Every other science article I find uses the international spellings, with a brief mention at the beginning of the article that there is a difference in spelling in the U.S. There is an excellent essay, with a detailed history of how the spelling came to be different in the U.S., that there is a separate English translation of the standards (which are published in French) specifically for the U.S. that differs from the English translation used by all other English-speaking countries, and the present-day ramifications of that in international trade, at Metrication Matters (PDF); I'll quote two things from the essay for those who subscribe to "tl;dr":
  • Is a micrometre the same as a micrometer?
Not at all. The spelling - metre - is attached to words that are units of length within the metric system, like millimetre, centimetre and kilometre. A micrometre is one millionth of a metre, but the special instrument that measures minute lengths such as that is a micrometer.
  • Whenever you see the word metre you know that is in some way a measure of length, but if you see the word meter you have to stop to evaluate whether it refers (in this instance) to a measuring device or to a measure of length. If you decide that it is a measure of length you need to consider whether the document comes from the USA or from another English speaking nation. If it is the latter, is it a misprint or is it from a piece of writing that has been specifically written for USA readers.
The second point is why I think using both spellings is more confusing than helpful. "Better", in my mind, would be to use the internationally-accepted spellings throughout, except where specifically identified as the U.S. spelling, and add language explaining that it's perfectly fine to use the U.S. spelling in an article as long as it's done consistently. (I would vote for insisting that science articles use the international spellings, however.) I'm not going to get into an edit war over this; it's not worth it. Just think about how imposing our nationalistic spelling distinctions reinforces the view that Americans are arrogant. That is a very common perception.—D'Ranged 1 VT 20:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Please, please can we have some kind of nuclear nonproliferation treaty on this? PLEASE??? I wrote this to someone some years ago, at the time as a joke but, as so often at Talk:MOS, truth turns out to be stranger than fiction:
In the last 48 hr I've become aware of a simmering dispute over whether the text of MOS itself should be in American or British English. With any luck the participants will put that debate (let's call it Debate D1) on hold in order to begin Debate D2: consideration of the variety of English in which D1 should be conducted. Then, if there really is a God in Heaven, D1 and D2 will be the kernel around which will form an infinite regress of metadebates D3, D4, and so on -- a superdense accrection of pure abstraction eventually collapsing on itself to form a black hole of impenetrable disputation, wholly aloof from the mundane cares of practical application and from which no light, logic or reason can emerge.
That some editors will find themselves inexorably and irreversibly drawn into this abyss, mesmerized on their unending trip to nowhere by a kaleidoscope of linguistic scintillation reminiscent of the closing shots of 2001, is of course to be regretted. But they will know in their hearts that their sacrifice is for greater good of Misplaced Pages. That won't be true, of course, but it would be cruel to disabuse them of that comforting fiction as we bid them farewell and send them on their way.
So please, can we just leave this be? If you insist on taking up this issue then create subpages D1, D2, D3, and so on (according to the naming scheme described above) and leave the rest of us out of it. EEng (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Says the editor involved in two posts of ~9,500 and ~6,000 words; you're going to object to a mere ~600? (Prior to your addition of another ~300 or so?) Oh, please, indeed. My Watchlist is chock-full of the edits to the two lengthy topics above; I think you can stand two additional entries in yours. And I meant what I said above (in case you missed it): "I'm not going to get into an edit war over this; it's not worth it."—D'Ranged 1 VT 03:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and he said it in such a deliciously incisive way. I have no idea what you're saying about watchlists. Glad to hear you don't want to edit-war over this. EEng (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
This page is on my watchlist; in the past two full days (UTC time), there have been 57 entries for edits to the page/talk page. So far, in the first 2 hours of the current day, there have been 3. My watchlist is awash in Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers‎; and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers‎;. So for you to complain about two edits is a bit ludicrous; your comments (which I'm sure you meant to be somewhat humorous) could also be interpreted as trying to stifle a discussion.—D'Ranged 1 VT 02:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to stifle the discussion. It's a discussion about nothing. To worry about whether we write meter or metre in MOS itself is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Waste of time. Exercise in futility. Straining at gnats and swallowing horses. Can't see the forest for the trees. Hobgoblin of little minds. Waste not, want not. A fool and his money are soon parted. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a micrometer. I have promises to keep, / And kilometres to go before I sleep. EEng (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I object to the D notation. It should be D, D', D'', D'''... —— 02:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Open a discussion on the question on subpage 0 {\displaystyle \aleph _{0}} . EEng (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Total Population (P1), 2010 Census Summary File 1". American FactFinder, All County Subdivisions within Massachusetts. United States Census Bureau. 2010.
  2. ^ "Massachusetts by Place and County Subdivision - GCT-T1. Population Estimates". United States Census Bureau. Retrieved July 12, 2011.
  3. ^ "1990 Census of Population, General Population Characteristics: Massachusetts" (PDF). US Census Bureau. December 1990. Table 76: General Characteristics of Persons, Households, and Families: 1990. 1990 CP-1-23. Retrieved July 12, 2011.
  4. ^ "1980 Census of the Population, Number of Inhabitants: Massachusetts" (PDF). US Census Bureau. December 1981. Table 4. Populations of County Subdivisions: 1960 to 1980. PC80-1-A23. Retrieved July 12, 2011.
  5. ^ "1950 Census of Population" (PDF). Bureau of the Census. 1952. Section 6, Pages 21-10 and 21-11, Massachusetts Table 6. Population of Counties by Minor Civil Divisions: 1930 to 1950. Retrieved July 12, 2011.
  6. ^ "1920 Census of Population" (PDF). Bureau of the Census. Number of Inhabitants, by Counties and Minor Civil Divisions. Pages 21-5 through 21-7. Massachusetts Table 2. Population of Counties by Minor Civil Divisions: 1920, 1910, and 1920. Retrieved July 12, 2011.
  7. ^ "1890 Census of the Population" (PDF). Department of the Interior, Census Office. Pages 179 through 182. Massachusetts Table 5. Population of States and Territories by Minor Civil Divisions: 1880 and 1890. Retrieved July 12, 2011.
  8. ^ "1870 Census of the Population" (PDF). Department of the Interior, Census Office. 1872. Pages 217 through 220. Table IX. Population of Minor Civil Divisions, &c. Massachusetts. Retrieved July 12, 2011.
  9. ^ "1860 Census" (PDF). Department of the Interior, Census Office. 1864. Pages 220 through 226. State of Massachusetts Table No. 3. Populations of Cities, Towns, &c. Retrieved July 12, 2011.
  10. ^ "1850 Census" (PDF). Department of the Interior, Census Office. 1854. Pages 338 through 393. Populations of Cities, Towns, &c. Retrieved July 12, 2011.
  11. ^ "1950 Census of Population" (PDF). 1: Number of Inhabitants. Bureau of the Census. 1952. Section 6, Pages 21–07 through 21-09, Massachusetts Table 4. Population of Urban Places of 10,000 or more from Earliest Census to 1920. Retrieved 2011-07-12. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  12. United States Census Bureau. "Table 3. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in Massachusetts: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011 (SUB-EST2011-03-25)". Retrieved 2013-01-18.
  13. United States Census Bureau. "Table 3. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in Massachusetts: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011 (SUB-EST2011-03-25)". Retrieved 2013-01-18.