Talk:Kilometres per hour/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

More disruptive behaviour

I just had to revert changes mad by User:Martinvl. They are undermining discussions above, including the one about the image caption and the one about the speedometer rules. Ornaith (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

---

@Guy, may I quote you from an earlier section here:

"[This] edit was disruptive.

First, it violates the basic Wikipedia principle that while there is an ongoing content dispute, the page stays at the last stable version. See WP:BRD... Second, the edit summary was completely misleading."

What about this edit. It also violated the principle about an ongoing dispute, and had a completely misleading edit summary. I reverted it, but Martinvl restored it again, and now he, and others, are suggesting it is me being disruptive! What exactly are the rules here again? Ornaith (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good question. The answer is that was/am doing two different things, first, if I personally see someone who is violating a policy, I tell them. If they stop, that's good and we move on. That does not imply anything one way or the other about any other behavior. For example, it could be that Martinvl made one or two mistakes and has otherwise been perfect while you, Ornaith, are willfully violating policy right and left. I wouldn't know because I have not gone through either of your edit histories to check. Or it could be that Martinvl is willfully violating policy right and left while you, Ornaith, have been perfectly well behaved. Again, I wouldn't know because I have not gone through either of your edit histories to check. You really can not draw any conclusions from my telling one person that he is doing something wrong. It is random which things I happen to notice. BTW, I do things wrong as well, and I get corrected when I do. That's all part of learning how to work together.

The second thing I am looking for is how many involved editors say someone is being disruptive. Just because a lot of people say it, that doesn't make it true. For example, I am pretty sure that some of the global warming pages are dominated by a group of editors all of whom chime in and call someone disruptive when all they are doing is disagreeing with the groupthink. Or the majority opinion could be spot on. Nobody is going to be criticized solely on the basis of other involved editors thinking they did something wrong. They are, after all, involved editors. Sooner or later, the folks making the accusations need to come up with some actual evidence.

Speaking of evidence, I did not bother following the "what about this edit" link above, just as I did not bother following previous links that allegedly were about your behavior. I am not a judge and I don't render verdicts. I am just an ordinary editor with no special authority who happens to have some experience mediating disputes like this one. Anyone can ignore me if they choose to do so.

What I am working towards here is advising anyone who cares to listen as to the right place to seek a resolution. It is starting to look like maybe WP:WQA is the right place, but I have to be frank with all of you and say that, collectively, you all have a very bad habit of not answering simple questions like "how many editors are on each side of this dispute?" That's really not going to go over well at WQA, just as it didn't go over well at DRN. Pissing off and frustrating those who want to help really isn't such a good idea.

So the answer to the question "Disruptive behaviour, or not" is "I don't know and I don't care, but there are some fine folks at places like WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U and WP:ANI who do care". The answer to the question "What exactly are the rules here again?" (implying inconstant enforcement) is "Yup. Totally inconsistent on my part. I only comment on what happens right under my nose." That being said, once you get away from the false idea that I am a judge, noticeboards like WQA, RFC/U and ANI will consider all of the evidence. It should be noted that none of them are going to crawl through the page history either. What they are going to do is to ask the two sides of the dispute to provide diffs showing examples of the behavior. But that all comes later. Right now I am just trying to get you folks pointed in the right direction. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

@Guy, thanks for the detailed reply. I wasn't getting at you, but was honestly puzzed by the apparent sudden change of mood here from one day to the next. Ornaith (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think you were getting at me. I thought it was a very good question.

I am going to repeat one point, (addressed to everybody, not just Ornaith):

I have to be frank with all of you and say that, collectively, you pretty much all have a very bad habit of not answering simple questions like "how many editors are on each side of this dispute?" That's really not going to go over well during RFC, WQA, or ANI, just as it didn't go over well at DRN. Pissing off and frustrating those who want to help by posting responses that completely ignore direct questions is a Very Bad Idea. The first person who becomes responsive to direct questions is very likely to win the dispute simply because non-answers are not very persuasive. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest that one of you should put up a talk page RfC to get some more opinions and make the consensus clear. See

Wikipedia:Requests for comment

and

Wikipedia:RFC#Request comment through talk pages

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

@Guy, thanks for the suggestion. Things have taken a disturbing turn for the worse (and not just here, but in Stone (unit) too!). Blatant reversions and ignoring of the discussion and the excellent progress we have made here with that. Wild and disgusting allegations, misleading and even dishonest edit summaries, additions of incredibly transparent POV and OR as if following some pre-existing and non-negotiable agenda. And then, as if trying to polish a turd, dressing it up by dotting the i's and crossing the t's! I'll start reading up on the RfC stuff, any help with it would be appreciated as I've got a busy weekend ahead of me. Ornaith (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot depends on what problem we want to address first. If the consensus on the content is close to evenly divided, an RfC will bring in new opinions so we can arrive at a clear consensus and start applying sanctions to anyone who refuses to abide by that consensus. If the consensus is clear already we can go right to dealing with anyone who refuses to abide by it. This starts at WP:WQA and escalates if that does not work. If the behavior problems are bad enough that they will interfere with an RfC, then going to WP:WQA before running the RfC might be best. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, needs more than an RfC. We don't so much have a simple difference of opinion which we are discussing, but can't agree on. We can't actually get one of the editors involved to engage in a reasoned discussion, without him going back and re-imposing his will unilaterally and without engaging further, and then throwing in inflammatory and insulting remarks and dishonest edit summaries too. This has happened for the text of the abbreviations section and again for the image caption. Is that a case best suited to WP:WQA, do you think? Ornaith (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Ornaith aka User:DeFacto is quite right - one of the editors is uncooperative - Ornaith. Here is a list of discussions that we had before (s)he was banned undeR the name Defacto. You don't need to read them, just count the number entries - they all related to one paragraph in one article:

• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 4#Proposed removal of the whole Asda story
• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 2#ASDA
• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 3#Asda report - 12 October update
• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 3#MedCab mediation offer
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 107#Using reports of market research surveys
• Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 34#Polls and surveys

Martinvl (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. A repeat of the discussion that has been going on on the article talk page, repeating many of the same arguments. I never saw that one coming...

(Note: the above is just some good-natured kidding about the way we humans think, not a criticism targeted against one side.)

No, I am not going to look at any threads or make any determination that one editor is right and another is wrong. That would only make the situation worse.

Earlier, when this was at WP:DRN I tried to get you folks to simply give me a count of who is on each side. (No, I am not going to crawl through the talk page history and try to figure it out.) I am going to ask again: how many sides? Two? Seven? How many editors on each side? One vs. one? Twelve vs. eleven? One vs. three vs. twenty seven? Surely one of you can give me a count. Note: if I get two different counts my next question will be "name them" and if needed asking each editor named.

With this information I can give you better advice about how to resolve this. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

@Guy: The discussions that I listed were concerning the article Metrication in the United Kingdom, not kilometres per hour. Issues from that discussion have now been resolved - DeFacto has been banned from Wikipedia and the article given an overhaul. I listed then to put DeFacto's (Ornaith) comment into perspective that it was (s)he, not me who was the disruptive party.

As long as Ornaith does not take part (disrupt) any discussions, I think that we can now resolve issues between ourselves, so may I thank you for the help that you have given. Martinvl (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? I am sure that if I asked him, Ornaith would say that this can be resolved if you do not "take part (disrupt) any discussions".

Also, stop accusing Ornaith of being DeFacto. There is an ongoing investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto and it is against Wikipedia policy to accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet unless there has been a finding at WP:SPI saying he is one. We resolve questions of sockpuppetry at SPI, not on article talk pages. Besides, we all know that you are actually Justin Beiber ... or was that Lady Gaga? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Martinvl's appraisal. There wasn't a content issue here (certainly not one that involved weighing competing reliable sources). There was an editor issue, and once Ornaith is no longer participating I don't see any disputes going forward. GaramondLethe 08:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, so far I have two editors (Martinvl and Garamond Lethe) who say that Ornaith's behavior is the problem and one editor (Ornaith) who says that some other unspecified editor's behavior is the problem. That's a good start on solving this -- if everybody agrees that we have a behavior problem (even if you disagree about who), I can help you to resolve that. Two to one is a very weak consensus though. Anyone else want to weigh in so I have some more solid numbers? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Guy, I have been involved and I have continued to observe. But a while ago I recognised that this was developing into a war of attrition far too vividly reminiscent of the trouble DeFacto caused. I cannot dedicate time and effort to another such struggle right now; I have worse to deal with in RL and more depending on it. At least I've managed to resolve the undisplayed refs issue. NebY (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that the count is now three to one? Or am I misinterpreting your comment? If it is three to one, that's significant. Sometimes two editors both come to the same false conclusion about a behavioral problem, but three? With no editors disagreeing? That's a pretty clear consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's fair. NebY (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Having spent an inordinate amount of time reading this talk page, I may as well add that, without the ability to read minds the two editors seem equally willing to opportunistically attempt to get what they want (i.e, 'someone random editor broke a link in this subsection, I fixed it and also happened to change the lead to what I want whoops'). While it's true that removing either editor would end the issue (as can be noted when one disappears for a few too many hours and then a change is made because they 'aren't discussing'); blaming it on either editor specifically strikes me as silly. All in all, this experiment in virtual trench warfare interests me enough that I have to disagree with the sudden conclusion that it's all Ornaith's fault. Darryl from Mars (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I just checked a random sample of edits, and I tend to concur. It's far from being the worst such behavior I have seen seen, but neither side is blameless. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were getting close to agreement, until Martinvl broke away and started apply his undiscussed and unagreed changes. I thought it was Martinvl who was being disruptive by reverting agreed text, applying his preferred text against the consensus and his dishonest edit summaries and then capping it with an outrageous allegation about me impersonating someone else (more about that later when I've recovered enough to get my thoughts together). But apparently it was all a figment of my imagination. Can Garamond, NebY and Martinvl please describe where they think I was being disruptive in this discussion? Ornaith (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather wait for the SPI process to run its course before starting that conversation. GaramondLethe 20:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

@Garamond, that's "sockpuppet investigations", I've just discovered. Yes, I'm just trying to find out what that's all about. Ornaith (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is where we are. we have:

One editor (Ornaith) who says that the problem is Martinvl misbehaving.

Two editors (Darryl from Mars and Guy Macon) who say that the problem is Martinvl and Ornaith both misbehaving.

Three editors (Martinvl, Garamond Lethe, and NebY) who say that the problem is Ornaith misbehaving.

We have a WP:SPI in progress (no, we are not going to discuss the details here!) which is awaiting checkuser. For those of you who aren't wikigeeks like me, that means that somebody thinks somebody who is banned from Wikipedia is using another identity to evade the ban. "Checkuser" means that Wikipedia keeps logs that only a few people can see (admins can't see them) and which will tell us if the accusation is true. This will take a few days, but is worth waiting for, as it will either result in a name being cleared or a sockpuppet being banned.

After that, I suggest that someone here open a case at WP:WQA. Anyone can file, but I will note that if either of you (Martinvl or Ornaith) files and we see the same "wall of text" we just saw at SPI, you are going to experience what it is like walking into a buzzsaw.

You need to learn how to write a complaint that is concise, dispassionate, concise, to the point, concise, fact-based, concise, backed up with diffs showing the behavior you describe, concise, calm, cool and unemotional, and concise. Did I mention concise?

Either that or you can ramble on about how you are good and pure and the other editor is vile and corrupt, only to be torn apart while the rest of us laugh at you for not listening. See WP:BOOMERANG.

After WQA I will post another count like I did above with additional names from WQA, and we will discuss the next step in conflict resolution. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Moot point. WP:SPI determined that Ornaith si indeed a sockpuppet and applied an indefinite block. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Going forward (symbol and abbrev)

I'd like to propose that the abbreviation work be de-emphasized (and as I was the one who contributed most of the text and all of the cites for that, I don't think that should be too controversial). I'm envisioning keeping the paragraph that describes the history of the term, a note that will segregate the ugly list of abbreviations and dates somewhere near the end of the article, and then immediately lead into the history of the formal defintions as a symbol. I would prefer that the word "abbreviation" not appear in the lede. I'll be posting proposed text in this thread within the next twelve hours or so. Comments, of course, are welcome. GaramondLethe 18:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that we go back to this version and salvage what we can.

• I propose that the section "Abbreviations in current use" be merged into the section "Abbreviation development" and that this section be rewitten, noting the large number of abbreviations and drawing to attention the use of "kph" by UK journalists and "k.p.h." by US journalists.
• As Garamond suggested, the list should be trimmed down. I suggest that we keep "k.p.h", "KPH", "km/h", "km./hr" and "km per hour" as a representative sample of the variations found.
• I would also like to draw to attention that the style manuals which advoate kph also advocate "C" or "F" instead of "xC" and "xF".
• I invite Garamond's and Guy's comments on whether we shoud seek to shorten the sections "Kilometers per hour as a symbol" and "Regulatory use".
• We should standardise on either "kilometer" or "kilometre". Since historically this artcile used UK spelling, then under WP:ENGVAR, we should keep it that way.

Martinvl (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Concur on which version to start from.

• Would like to discuss further once I finish coding up my proposed text. I'm thinking of merging the abbreviation and symbols sections into a "History of Notation" section and tuck the "abbreviations in current use" into the notes section. But I'm not wedded to the idea.
• Concur. Just to clarify: I think the complete list of abbreviations is interesting (well, for certain values of "interesting") but having it in the main body invites questions of wp:undue. I'm hoping the full list finds a discreet home in the notes section. A small handful of historical abbreviations in the main body is fine.
• Concur. Style manual notes sounds good.
• Concur. As to shortening the other sections: I find the standardization of the symbol to be interesting (mostly because I had no clue about the distinction before starting this process), but yes, we can probably tighten that up a bit. The regulatory issues are also interesting to me, but less so, and well outside my area of expertise, so I'll probably just stand aside for those.
• Concur on "kilometre".

(n.b. corrected signature) GaramondLethe 21:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, before we go on, there is just one question I didn't see answered. Was km/h in use before the SI definition as a symbol? Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was in use as early as 1898 along with a dozen other abbreviations. GaramondLethe 00:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, turns out reading through the selected revision answers the question better than the current one. Anyways, the chosen revision does seem like a good place to work from. How do you feel about the way it uses abbreviation in the lead though? Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how we've had a multi-week discussion over just that question that went to DRN and back and resulted in the banning of two accounts as a sockpuppets, I feel you'll probably want to dance through this particular minefield very, very carefully.... In the domain of international standards, legal regulation and academic research, "km/h" is a symbol (and "symbol" is defined to have a very particular meaning, including "not an abbreviation"). In several dictionaries and colloquially, "km/h" is referred to as an abbreviation. Tom Stoppard observed "We are limited by a language that makes up in obscurity what it lacks in style", which I considered not wholly irrelevant...

So there's a judgement call to be made: is this an article about the international unit of measurement or about linguistic categories of official and unofficial word use? In trying to mediate an existing dispute I went for "both". Since that time I've become the world's leading expert on the history of the abbreviation of "kilometers per hour" (the 20 citations to that effect are all mine, I think) and, in my newly-professional opinion, the word "abbreviation" doesn't belong in the lede.

You may have a different opinion, of course, but it might be best to hold off until the article stabilizes in a couple of days, and then make use of an unusually high level of civility. GaramondLethe 00:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, as a show of good faith/self-preservation I have no intention of actually going in to edit this article, so you could easily disregard me at will. The lead in that revision struck me as notably fair though; there's a set of SI defined symbols which represent it, and a set of English abbreviations; all are in use for some portion of our readers, and the string 'km/h' happens to be in both sets for independent and either well sourced or patently obvious reasons. From an encyclopedic stand point, that gives everyone all the accurate information.

Ah, but did you mean to remove the set of abbreviations form the lead, or just replace the word 'abbreviation'? Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Keeping the lede more or less intact is certainly a possibility (more so now that you've expressed a preference) and it's a version I'm happy to live with. I would prefer leaving the use as an abbreviation out of the lede altogether, but that may be an invitation to fight this battle all over again and so on practical (and humanitarian) grounds including both may be the better choice. Dunno. Let me get the notation history proposal up and we'll figure it out. (BTW, I commend your finely-honed self-preservation instincts.) GaramondLethe 01:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about the text; that will change. I'd like feedback on whether a table in the notes section like this one is a reasonable path forward. Thanks, GaramondLethe 02:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

===Notation===

Although the unit of length kilometer first made its appearance in English in 1810, the compound unit of speed "kilometers per hour" was first observed no later than 1866. "Kilometers per hour" did not begin to be abbreviated in print until many years later, with several different abbreviations existing near-contemporaneously.

===Notes===

Historical	Current
"k. p. h." (1889), "km:h" (1895), "km/h" (1898), "km./hr." (1899), "km./hr" (1899), "km/hr." (1900), "k.p.h." (1902), "K.P.H." (1911), "K. P. H." (1912), "km. hr." (1914), "km/hour" (1915), "km.-hr." (1915) "km. per hour" (1916), "km/hr" (1919), "K.p.h" (1921), "KPH" (1933),	"km/h", "kmph", "kph", "KMHR", "KPH",

===References===

{{reflist|close}}

It seems like there's a lot of empty space between the lines that isn't strictly necessary, becuase all the entries are made <small>? That's a detail of formatting I'm unfamiliar with though. Looks good otherwise. Darryl from Mars (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, thanks --- that looks great! GaramondLethe 20:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Middot replacement

I was asked to show where middots were replaced by dashes. The first one that I saw was on line 2. I have not yet looked any further. Martinvl (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have done a little more research - WP:MOSNUM recommends the use of middot when multiplying symbols - moreover middot produceds a slightly larger chanracter than sdot. Please reinstate the middots. Martinvl (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Presumably your line 2 includes:

The unit symbol is km/h or km·h⁻¹.

Which I replaced with

The unit symbol is km/h or km⋅h⁻¹.

This was a replacement of middot (·) with sdot (⋅), not with a dash as you stated. The MoS is not fully consistent; however, review Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Mathematics#Multiplication sign – it makes some mention of the sdot where multiplication is intended. This fits more closely with the Unicode wording accoding to my memory.

OTOH, on the presumption that you do not consider article to be scientific (it is clearly not mathematical), I will replace the sdots with middots again. You clearly prefer the larger dot (though I personally don't see the point). — Quondum 16:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You may both be right. I too thought that Quondum had inserted dashes and when I look very closely at my monitor I see the sdot displayed as two pixels wide and one tall. If I then zoom the display it varies; sometimes it's clearly a dot, as tall as it's wide, and sometimes it's clearly wider than it's tall, while the middot retains equal height and width throughout. I don't think my setup is particularly unusual. I suppose it may be a bit different to those in common use when that part of the MOS was written, which leads to the horrid thought that it might be better to avoid the sdot even in scientific and mathematical contexts. NebY (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

refs in gallery are broken

The references in the <gallery> section work fine if they're moved outside of the gallery, but {{reflist}} isn't processing them correctly within the gallery. My first inclination is to try moving the references within the reflist (like Parable of the Sunfish) but that's a pretty drastic change. Other solutions? GaramondLethe 06:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have solved the problem, but I used the difficult way - I formatted the citations myself. I know from experience that when multiple templates are used, all sorts of wierd conditions come up and it is often quicker to ditch the template than to find a work-around. Martinvl (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I had thought of several solutions, all of which were more complicated than that. Nice work! GaramondLethe 20:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of kph

The following was posted on my talk page:

If it is of sufficient importance to have a section, then the contents of that section should be summarised in the lead per WP:Lead. It is also of benefit to those readers who understand usage such as kph to see it in the lead. Removing it from the lead might be seen as a POV action, as though there was an attempt to suppress such usage. We need to ensure that our articles give a robust appearance that we are not being selective about which common expressions we approve of! SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Martinvl (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Placing this in the first paragraph is giving it undue weight. If you feel strongly about it, then work it into the final paragraph of the lead, along with the bit about "klicks", but however you word it, make it clear that even if the Daily Mail uses "kph", official and academic publications (including school work) should use "km/h". Martinvl (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Should"? I don't follow you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC) And I am unclear about "undue weight". Some clarification of your concerns would be helpful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Should" as in "You should use the symbol Fe for the element iron." Other symbols and abbreviations have existed and some abbreviations may still be in use, but if you're working with the government or doing science or engineering then the expectation is to use the relevant international standards. GaramondLethe 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of, Martin, we had a list of "current" abbreviations (scroll up a bit to see it). I like the look of that table. Was there a reason we decided not to go with that version? I can't remember. GaramondLethe 01:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Garamond

As far as I can recall, the reason was that we could not find any authoritative sources that required the use of "kph" etc (upper or lower case) - the OED (and other English language dictionaries) recorded that at some time in the past, "kph" has been used. On the other hand, the CGPM (since 1960) and ISO (since 1992 or earlier) have specified that one "should" use "km/h" or "km · h^-1 internatioanlly, NIST (since 2001 or earlier) recommend the use iof "km/h" within the United States and EU directives (since 1972) makes it a legal requirement for any purpose associated with the Internal Market.

Martinvl (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I've not been clear. We have a table of archaic abbreviations in the article and above we have that table along with "abbreviations that aren't official but that you might still see around". Hmmm... to be consistent, those cites should be to a reasonable date for "first use". Let me see what I can dig up along those lines. GaramondLethe 17:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding abbreviation

This article is the first one mentioned in the kph page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kph. Please add kph to the introductory section as it is probably the most common abbreviation used for this measurement of speed. Here is some proof if you didn't already know it http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/kph.

There are at least 10 different abbreviations of kilometers per hour, all of which are now archaic. They are listed later in the article. The symbol km/h is now in common (though not universal) use. Garamond Lethet
c 23:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Some abbreviations may be archaic, but kph is not - it is current and common, and certainly more familiar than km·h^−1, so should figure in the first sentence at least on a par with km/h. The BBC use it in their news reports: [1][2][3], as do RTÉ: [4], CNN: [5][6][7], CBC: [8][9], ABC: [10], TVNZ: [11]. So to use that as an excuse for omitting it is disingenuous. Béal Orna (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The ones in the opening paragraph section are the official abbreviations. Unofficial ones are covered further down - SimonLyall (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The English language isn't regulated (as say, the French language is, for example), so has no official abbreviations. If you mean the official abbreviations of certain major organisations, then kph can certainly be included as the official abbreviation used by Reuters - see [12]. Béal Orna (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, DeFacto. SPI already filed. You know the drill. Garamond Lethet
c 18:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If abbreviations used by major news organisations are not in the lead section, slang shouldn't be. Maybe a new section is needed, not just within "notation history", for other names and notations (or call it "notation and naming" or something similar, and move "notation history" within it). The "slang" paragraph from the lead section, and the paragraph starting "With no central authority", could then be moved into it. Peter James (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, slang and notations would sit well together in a new section; that's a great idea. But I'd be very wary of the argument that "kph" is used by major news organisations and should be given prominence. It's easy to find instances but they may be exceptions and certainly a quick check on Orna's first organisation, the BBC, shows how exceptional they can be. "kph" appears at www.bbc.co.uk about 3,250 times, of which about 1,310 are in their forums at www.bbc.co.uk/dna and not organisational usage. "km/h" appears at www.bbc.co.uk about 130,000 times. The BBC's news style guide says on speeds "Our style is: 2.5km/h and 60mph - ie with no gap after the number." NebY (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Not organisations generally, but those mentioned in the article: Reuters and The Guardian. The source verifies Reuters as recommending kph, but an online version of the Guardian source says "km/h kilometres an hour (not kph)", and a 2012 Guardian style guide doesn't mention it at all. Peter James (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I could see adding a sentence to the lead along the lines of "Most media organizations have adopted the symbol km/h, but a few (such as Reuters) prefer the abbreviation kph." The body of the article would need a section listing a dozen or so style guides and their recommendations to back that up. Hmmm.... I might have time to track down a few style guides this afternoon. Garamond Lethet
c 18:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but the lead has information about slang and military terminology, which needs mentioning elsewhere in the article whether it's summarised in the lead or not. Peter James (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the slang out of the lead and into the notation history section. Checking into the Guardian cite now.... Garamond Lethet
c 20:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian is out, The Economist is in, and I've added a couple more obscure abbreviations to the list. Peter, others: do you think the lead is in good enough shape to remove the tag? Garamond Lethet
c 21:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence says something not otherwise mentioned, but it's not enough of an issue to require a tag. Peter James (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The current text appears to state that the Economist also recommends "40C" for temperature. I think that only applies to Reuters, but it might be simpler to remove the bit about temperature. --Boson (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Good catch—fixed. Garamond Lethet
c 05:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's quite ironic that practically all examples given above are from sources that do not use "kilometre per hour" as their unit of speed. They give speeds in "mph" and try to convert to "km/h", getting it wrong. −Woodstone (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Getting it wrong? Kph = km/h in the same way that mph = mi/h. Neither is wrong, they are simply different ways used to represent the same thing. Béal Orna (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Tell you what: if you're still here after the SPI we can discuss it. Garamond Lethet
c 00:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Kilometres per hour → Kilometre per hour
• Actions per minute → Action per minute
• Counts per minute → Count per minute
• Dots per centimetre → Dot per centimetre
• Dots per inch → Dot per inch
• Flashes Per Minute → Flash per minute
• Instructions per second → Instruction per second
• Lines per inch → Line per inch
• Miles per hour → Mile per hour
• Millimeters, water gauge → Millimeter, water gauge
• Queries per second → Query per second
• Revolutions per minute → Revolution per minute
• Samples per inch → Sample per inch
• Tracks per inch → Track per inch

– Article title should be in singular form per WP:AT, WP:PLURAL, and normal practise for such articles. —  AjaxSmack  00:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Cf. other SI derived units, Imperial units, and Customary units of measurement in the U.S. such as metre per second or radian per second. Also note a similar ongoing discussion at Talk:Pounds per square inch.

Survey

• I have no title preference for these myself. —  AjaxSmack  00:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose all as per WP:PLURAL--this is an exception that has enjoyed long-standing support here. (Can I be pedantic? Truth be told, I oppose as per WP:UE, as "mile per hour", etc. is ridiculous.) See for instance [13] or [14] if you want evidence. Red Slash 04:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose all, now Neutral. "In Standard English, [the use of the plural] crucially depends on whether the phrase is prenominal or not. Prenominally, the phrase will not show plural marking, while elsewhere it will have the normal plural marking, as appropriate."[15] In other words, the unit is the kilometer per hour, but kilometers per hour is the better name for the article. The source isn't reliable, but it's the most on-point I can find after a quick search. I'll see what else I can find. Garamond Lethet
  c 04:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC) After consulting several sources, I'm convinced that kilometer per hour is the more correct choice, but I have yet to be convinced that correctness trumps the principle of least surprise. Looking forward to seeing how the conversation develops. Garamond Lethet
  c 23:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose All Wikipedia rules don't trump English grammar. The plural is used unless the actual value is one Unit or less. This is the very first time I've seen most of those constructions. If there's a serious rule conflict, the rule needs to change to allow these. htom (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose all. I think this is similar to the last guideline on WP:PLURAL#Exceptions in reference to The Beatles: in common English usage, it is normally almost always plural unless the phase refers to only one unit or individual. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Mild oppose all. Singular form would technically be correct and consistent with SI derived units, but since none of the above are official SI units (at best, they're a combination of an SI unit and an arbitrary measurement), I think common usage in English (i.e. plural form) should prevail. Indrek (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. According to the logic of the above users, since the plural is used for most units unless the value is one, we can argue that we should use plural for article titles of simple units such as hours, kilometres, inches, pounds (mass), and feet (unit). However this is not the case in Wikipedia. --Quest for Truth (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. These articles are each about a unit, which is by definition singular. Only when combined with a number greater than one they become plural. WP:PLURAL applies. −Woodstone (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is not plural, it's singular: "Kilometres per hour is a unit of measure." Also, as others rightly note, common usage overwhelmingly favors the current form. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose all: Those aren't official SI units, so their common English usage is the way to go. In other words, proposed "singular" forms would make no sense. For example, "dot per inch" makes no sense when compared to "dots per inch." How could you say that a printout has "600 dot per inch", or that current speed is "60 mile per hour?" Plain wrong, except in cases where the associated value is one, like in "one mile per hour" — but then again, those units are almost always used with values much bigger than one. — Dsimic (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You say the plural singular is "wrong, except in cases where the associated value is one, like in one mile per hour'" but isn't that true for all units? We only use the singular when there is one and there are plenty of articles on small units that rarely come up in the singular such as micrometre or grain. —  AjaxSmack  22:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, I said something like "plural is correct, except in cases where the associated value is one" – just to correct a small mistake in your comment above. It all pretty much fits together, as names of the SI units are also written in plural where applicable, unless actual symbols are used, and symbols aren't abbreviations. For example, it's "5 minutes" and "5 min", as "minute" is a plain English word, while "min" is an actual SI symbol for that unit. This page provides a nice overview. — Dsimic (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the note about the mistake. The source you gave uses both singulars and plurals for unabbreviated unit names. Wikipedia's style manual says to use singulars for titles. Why should these articles be different? —  AjaxSmack  03:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
        • You're welcome. Please also have a look at my comments in the subsection below, where Instructions per second is mentioned. Looking forward to discussing it further from there! — Dsimic (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Miles per hour and revolutions per minute (FWIW revolution per minute sounds incredibly wrong) are the common usages. I assume it's true of the others, given the comments above. Hot Stop 21:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "Revolution per minute sounds incredibly wrong". Really? Should I say that my broken turntable completes only one revolutions per minute? —  AjaxSmack  03:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Even though the terms are rarely used in the singular when describing actual measurements and so do seem strange and uncommon, here we are describing and defining the actual units. In this context it is appropriate to use the singular and (as I've just discovered and described below) that is normal practice in reference works and standards. (Which said, I sympathise with and respect the arguments against and nearly !voted to oppose - yesterday.) NebY (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and above opposes. Neljack (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - inappropriate (but well intentioned) expansion of prior best practice. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I found a previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 11#RfC: Should titles of article on units of the form "X per Y" be singular or plural?. --Quest for Truth (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Plural?

I see that this nomination raises WP:PLURAL as a key objection to the current title, but I'm not sure that's applicable given that the current title is already singular. For instance, one would not say, "kilometres per hour are units of measure." One would instead say, "kilometres per hour is a unit of measure." The title refers to a unit, which in this case is kilometers per hour; that the name of the measurement includes a plural noun does not make the measurement itself plural. I thought I should ask, though: does anyone actually use this title as a plural?

(BTW, I see that miles per hour is the same: "Miles per hour is an imperial unit of speed expressing the number of statute miles covered in one hour.") ╠╣uw [talk] 11:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a sloppy statement. It should be: "Mile per hour is an imperial unit of speed defined as traversing one statute mile in one hour." −Woodstone (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Both statements are good; the first one is oriented more towards describing the everyday usage, while the second one is more formal. Though, the second one should read "One mile per hour is an imperial unit [...] one hour," what would make it completely correct. — Dsimic (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Not quite... The mile per hour is an imperial unit. Miles per hour is also an imperial unit. Garamond Lethet
c 16:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hm, both? Any references describing that in detail, please? — Dsimic (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Not in detail, but I can give you a couple of good cites.

"The kilometre per hour, symbol km/h, is a measurement unit of speed outside the SI but accepted for use with the SI."[16] International vocabulary of metrology – Basic and general concepts and associated terms, 2008, p7.

"...and 90 is the numerical value of the speed in the unit kilometers per hour."[17] The International System of Units: SI, NIST 330, 2008, p40.

Your second example quoteation claims that the unit is kilometers per hour. Perhaps a typo, here or there. htom (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If it's a typo it's in the source, but I'm pretty sure it's not a typo. Garamond Lethet
c 22:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the intention was to illustrate presence and usage of both forms, so it's not a typo. — Dsimic (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

But as Wavelength commented, this doesn't have much to do with how we title our articles. I'm now leaning towards the singular with redirects from the plural. Garamond Lethet
c 19:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for a detailed reply, and for a good pointer to another thread! Well, all this makes the singular form more reasonable to me, :) but "instruction per second" (for example) still just doesn't sound as good as "instructions per second", for an article title. The actual Instructions per second article states the following in its lead section:

"Instructions per second (IPS) is a measure of a computer's processor speed."

That slightly changes the meaning, as in that context it's more of a tool for measuring something, than the actual unit. Hm... All this brought me really deep thoughts about something that's usually overlooked. :) — Dsimic (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

When I first saw this proposal, my first (and second, and third) thoughts were "Hell, no!". At this point, I think principle of least surprise is the best argument for keeping the plural form as the article; that's a good argument, but not a great one. I can see relitigating this over and over again as people who wikilink to kilometers per hour find out they've hit a redirect. So I'll change my !vote to neutral and see how the conversation develops. Garamond Lethet
c 22:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the principle of least astonishment favors the current title. Similarly, common name policy is a strong rationale for it, given the clear prevalence of the current form across reliable sources (as Red Slash's ngrams above ably illustrate).

On the subject of reliable sources, I'm checking a few major sites where the measurement might be expected to appear quite frequently and am seeing how (and how frequently) each variant is used. Starting with NASA: Raw usage counts from Google initially show an inflated 11,600 for "kilometers per hour" and 968 for "kilometer per hour"; one must page to the end of these results to get the slightly more accurate counts of 519 to 74.

Such measures are telling but also crude, so it's good to examine specifically how and where the agency uses the latter: it seems it's mostly in cases where the number of kilometers per hour is actually one (as in: "a top speed under one kilometer per hour")[18][19][20], or when the speed is used as an adjective (as in: "the storm had 80-kilometer-per-hour sustained winds")[21][22][23]. Elsewhere, the "kilometers per hour" form appears most frequently, including a few cases I spotted where NASA refers specifically to the unit of measure itself: "What is the speed of the CME in kilometers per hour?"[24], "...you will get our orbital speed in kilometers per hour"[25], etc.

As time permits I'll pore through a sampling of other sites; I thought the NHTSA might be another good candidate that'd frequently deal in speeds (and at a glance it looks like it demonstrates much the same usage patterns as NASA)... ╠╣uw [talk] 11:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I've looked in a few standard references. Some just use symbols and abbreviations, but others do give full names when defining units, listing the units normally used or providing conversion factors. I've found "kilometre per hour", "mile per hour", "metre per second" and other singular forms in

• BS 350:Part 1: 1974 Conversion factors and tables, BSI
• Tables of Physical and Chemical Constants (15th edition), Kaye and Laby
• CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (68th edition), Weast et al
• Kempe's Engineers Year-Book (96th edition), ed C Sharpe (sic)
• some other less generic sources including some ASME and ASTM publications.

I did find entries for "kilocycles per second" and "grams per square metre" in the body of the Larousse Dictionary of Science and Technology (1995), preceding editions of which were published as Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary and in North America as Cambridge Dictionary of Science and Technology, but found no other entries for compound units in it.NebY (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the plural examples is "megabytes per second" in Computer Architecture, Fifth Edition: A Quantitative Approach (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Computer Architecture and Design), on page 18 (available in online preview). — Dsimic (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• US Defense And Intelligence Abbreviations And Acronyms Handbook (p. 140) lists "kilometers per hour" for the (very nonstandard) abbreviations KM/HR and KPH.
• The Dictionary of Naval Abbreviations (p. 140) lists "kilometers per hour" as KPH as well.
• The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law (p. 154) uses "kilometers per hour" for the (nonstandard) kph.
• Dictionary of Acronyms and Technical Abbreviations (p. 332) does as well.

Personally, I think there's a nice correlation here between a willingness to make up your own abbreviations and the use of colloquial English to define those abbreviations. But this is a case where there is a division in (more or less) reliable sources, not an absence of sources on one side. Garamond Lethet
c 23:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is inherent in the use of the term "unit [of measurement]" In common parlance, I would say, this means something like "what you measure or specify something in" (e.g. miles, seconds, dollars) and is more like "dimension". To someone writing standards its meaning is probably more akin to the meaning in "hundreds, tens, and units", i.e. exactly 1. As the article on Units of measurement states: 'A unit of measurement is a definite magnitude of a physical quantity . . . When we say 10 metres (or 10 m), we actually mean 10 times the definite predetermined length called "metre".' [exactly 1 metre]. So the abbreviation does usually mean "kilometres per hour" (because you measure things in kilometres per hour) but, in the strict sense, the unit (by definition unit = 1) is (exactly one) kilometre per hour. Or, to put it another way, it depends on what the topic of the article is: the single (realisable) "kilometre per hour" (which is multiplied by a number to give a speed) or the "kilometres per hour" in which speed is specified or measured). --Boson (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Very well said, and quite similar to the comparison between a tool and unit I've already referred to. I'd say that all of the articles having their names questioned are describing the tools, as otherwise they should be almost one-line articles.

Please, let's just have a look at the kilometres per hour and instructions per second articles, for example – it's clear these aren't formally describing the actual units, but tools used for measuring something, as we have regulatory information provided, conversions, various comparisons, timelines etc. If we compare those two with the volt or ampere articles, for example, it's clear that the latter two are much more concise, and pretty much oriented towards formal definitions of actual SI units. — Dsimic (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Dsimic and Boson, I'd feel more confident in this line of argument if there were an RS that made the distinction you're making here. Do you have any ready at hand? Thanks! Garamond Lethet
c 16:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Totally agreed, I'll try to find some reliable sources. — Dsimic (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Poor choice of image in the lead

The pic seems to be presenting kilometres per hour as a variation on the (perhaps more normal?) miles per hour. And for some reason Canada gets a special mention. Kilometres per hour can stand on their own, without comparison with any other system. Anyway, the only other place miles are mentioned in the whole article is in a See also. It seems like a sop to those who don't understand metric measurements. We don't need that. I'd rather have no image than that one. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Removing. −Woodstone (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how you're reading all of that into an image of a speedometer, but ok. I think that image is much better than no image at all. Is there another one in commons that you'd fine more appropriate? Garamond Lethet
c 06:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I've explained my concerns. You haven't responded to them. You have simply edit warred. Not my job to find a "better" pic. A better pic than that one is no pic. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays, HiLo48. Garamond Lethet
c 08:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If that's your idea of discussion, you have offered us nothing. You have provided no reason to keep the image. It's time to remove it again. If you put it back without participating effectively in discussion here, I think it's reasonable to treat that as vandalism. (PS: I'm not going on holidays. Keep your US centric slogans to yourself. I think you've given us a hint as to why you want the MPH shown.) HiLo48 (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I retract my holiday greetings. Do you have a preference for WP:RFC or WP:3RD, or should we go directly to WP:DRN? Garamond Lethet
c 09:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I seek polite but not trivial discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

None of the discussion here is adequately constructive, collegial, or on point to justify either side of the edit war. I suggest the edit war end, rather than me blocking the lot of you. If you ACTUALLY would like to discuss the issue, then by all means do so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with my original post? One editor agreed with it. Garamond Lethe simply dismissed it, edit warred, and added nothing meaningful to the discussion. I think only one editor is misbehaving here. Threatening a block doesn't make me feel I've done anything wrong. It just feels like I'm being bullied. HiLo48 (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Your original post and the original image removal were fine. Your response to the challenge has had as little actual discussion as anyone's. Simply stating "I already answered that" or "It's not my job" is not discussion. You do not have to make a substantial effort to answer questions or challenges or propose alternatives; however, it's not collegial, and if you revert without answering questions or challenges or proposing alternatives it's edit warring. You have now removed twice with reverts without substantially participating in discussion, in an edit war what already had prior removals that were reverts. WP:EW requirements are clearly met to be able to sanction everyone who's reverted. Actually discussing seems easier than alternatives... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Aha! HiLo thought I was the IP (I'm not). That's where the edit-warring rant came from. Ok, this is starting to make a little more sense now. Thanks for protecting the article. Garamond Lethet
c 10:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. What IP? HiLo48 (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The IP you reverted here. I dropped in an hour later, made my first edit since Dec. 11th, and you read me the riot act about edit-warring ("You have simply edit warred."). Garamond Lethet
c 11:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48:

• The image is visually striking and reinforces the idea that we're discussing a measure of speed at human scale (something that may not be obvious to students in metric-challenged countries like the US).
• Standard practice is to contrast metric units with imperial and other conventional units (and this article doesn't do that enough). For example, kilometer mentions mile and its variants three times in the text (outside of conversion tables), litre mentions both imperial quarts and dry quarts, kilogram discusses the avoirdupois pound, etc.
• We do have a consistent problem with WP:SPAs de-emphasizing metrications, and that problem's name is DeFacto. I've participated in the multiple SPIs for this user, starting with hir work on this article (08 August 2012, 11 February 2013, 31 October 2013, 08 December 2013). As part of mitigating that damage, I've participated here to the tune of 36 article edits and 65 talk page edits, plus WP:DRN, plus edits across a dozen other articles. I know what anti-metrication looks like, and this image isn't it. As a happy side effect, I'm now the world's leading expert on historical abbreviations of "kilometers per hour". Haven't found a way to work that into my CV yet, though.
• However, as a proud American, I agree with your agenda to de-emphasize Canada. We do it instinctively. The preceding was meant to illustrate how baffling I find "And for some reason Canada gets a special mention." Canada is mentioned once in one caption and once in the disambiguation link. Anyway, Canadians are fine folks and there's only a modest chance that we'll be annexing them anytime soon.

I'm happy to take (most of) the above argument to the dispute resolution process of your choice, but I'm not going to argue about it with you. Which one do you prefer? Garamond Lethet
c 10:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the discussion. I remember DeFacto. Interesting character. You reckon he's still around? I still find it weird that this image is the only mention of Canada and effectively the only mention of mph in the article. I guess my basic point is that I don't think we should have to pander to ignorant readers in this article. And that's all the image seems to do. If you really believe some sort of comparison of kph and mph is going to be useful, surely it should be in the text (as well?). Maybe then the image could appear in context. Right now it's sitting there like a shag on a rock. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Defacto was editing here just two weeks ago: Talk:Kilometres_per_hour#Suggestion_regarding_abbreviation. I first experienced DeFacto when one of hir socks was needling Martinvl and recruiting help at the WP:TEAHOUSE; I was a noob and thought I was doing something helpful in trying to mediate between the two of them. That resulted in what seemed like a six-month conversation on whether or not "kph" was an abbreviation or symbol, which is why the present article spends so much time on that bit of trivia. Martinvl eventually had enough and filed another SPI, thus solving the problem. And every couple of months since, DeFacto pulls a couple more accounts out of the sock drawer and tries to roll back metrication in the UK. Anyway....

The image would be a good fit for the last paragraph of the "Regulatory Use" section, where the caption's mention of Canada would be a little more explicable (contrasting with the US speedometer regulations). I would still like a gauge of some sort in the lead; I'll be happy to poke around commons tomorrow and see what I can dig up. Signing off for tonight.... Garamond Lethet
c 11:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hm, would you like me to take a picture of a metric-only speedometer? I agree that such a picture would be a nice addition to the lead section. — Dsimic (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Dsimic, that would be great—thanks! Garamond Lethet
c 18:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm glad you like the idea. :) I'll take a picture in the next day or two. — Dsimic (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. The only downside comes from slightly dusty dashboard of my car. :) — Dsimic (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Lovely. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Dsimic (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks from me as well. Garamond Lethet
c 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Now returned "dual track" speedometer image fits well as part of the "Regulatory use" section. Good job everyone. :) — Dsimic (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If the image is restored, perhaps someone could first check the caption for correctness relevance (since it does not describe what is in the picture). --Boson (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Boson, I have a dim memory of this image starting out in the automotive regulation section. It may have gotten moved up to the lead without the caption getting updated. If it's moving back down, then I think the caption will once again be self-explanatory. Garamond Lethet
c 18:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)