Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 147

Archive 140

←

Archive 145

Archive 146

Archive 147

Archive 148

Archive 149

Archive 150

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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^alk 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 Wikipedia. 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^alk 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 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers‎; and Wikipedia: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^alk 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[1–n] notation. It should be D, D', D'', D'''... —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Open a discussion on the question on subpage $\aleph _{0}$. EEng (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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. [1] Dream Focus 17:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The context in which a large number is used in a Wikipedia 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?" Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Farmbrough, 10:16, 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 [2], 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 Wikipedia 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 [3]) 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 Wikipedia. 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 [4] (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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. WCM_email 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 Wikipedia articles confirms that it is certainly not a rare circumstance, quite the reverse, at least according to the mass of Wikipedia 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)

Year	Pop.
1722	10,600
1765	15,500
1790	18,300
1800	24,900
1810	33,800
1820	43,300
1830	61,400
1840	93,400
1850	137,000
1860	178,000
1870	251,000
1880	363,000
1890	448,000
1900	561,000
1910	671,000
1920	748,000
1930	781,000
1940	771,000
1950	801,000
1960	697,000
1970	641,000
1980	563,000
1990	574,000
2000	589,000
2010	618,000
2012	636,000
* = population estimate. Source: United States census records and Population Estimates Program data.

Boston population history (distractingly overprecise)

Year	Pop.
1722	10,567
1765	15,520
1790	18,320
1800	24,937
1810	33,787
1820	43,298
1830	61,392
1840	93,383
1850	136,881
1860	177,840
1870	250,526
1880	362,839
1890	448,477
1900	560,892
1910	670,585
1920	748,060
1930	781,188
1940	770,816
1950	801,444
1960	697,197
1970	641,071
1980	562,994
1990	574,283
2000	589,141
2010	617,594
2012	636,479
* = 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 [5].

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [6] 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 [7]). 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. Wikipedia, 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. [OK, checked, it was 1992, for what it's worth.]) 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 Wikipedia 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

[insert example] 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 Wikipedia 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 [etc etc] -- 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). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC) (edited) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 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. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 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. [8]

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)

Optionally generate a footnote with the full precision value, statement of the original precision (is there a standard notation for this?), uncertainty, and name tag of the source ref (all optional)? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

MOS:DATEUNIFY

"For example, in a single article write:

Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008)

...but not:

Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008)"

Is there a difference between these that I'm missing? Otherwise, is this an acceptable date format? Adabow (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Since this section is about how to make the format of all the dates in an article consistent, you will have to quote more of the section you are writing about so we can see the context. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to read the whole example as the lines you quote are the first of a pair. The example is showing that you should not mix usage of Sep with September. Keith D (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Adabow: As Jc3s5h mentioned, that section is about the dates in articles being a consistent format. The portion of the page which you have copied here is incomplete. You have included only the first line of both examples. Both examples have a second line. The point which was being made is that the formats of the dates used should be consistent with each other. To make that point the first line in each example was kept the same, as you highlight above. The second line is different showing in the good case that "Sep" is abbreviated in both. The bad case shows the first line with "Sep" abbreviated, but the second line has "September" written out. — Makyen (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

*facepalm* Oh, I see. Thanks. Adabow (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Fret not. It's one of the weirdest things in MOS, and it wasn't clear. I've tried to improve it just now. EEng (talk) 19:45, 15 June 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 [9]. 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 [10]. 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. [11] (not even an effort to provide a conversion to imperial that I can see) [12] (likewise, although older water level measurements are given in feet and inches) [13] [14]. 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 [15] 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 [the British] 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. However, perhaps someone can indicate sources showing where such usage might be appropriate in a more formal, written context.

The footnote

• Note the style guides of British publications such as The Times (see archived version, under "Metric")

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 "[a] 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)

• • I oppose the changes mentioned above for the same reasons as Kahastok. The idea of "metricating" Wikipedia in this content for the sake of it is an example of righting great wrongs, something that is opposed by policy. RGloucester — ☎ 23:02, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

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.[16] - 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)

And here we are again – the Guardian style guide is telling us to measure petrol in pints! And the volume of the North Sea! Perhaps the Guardian assumes its writers can simply be told that "miles and pints may be used", and they will understand what that means, rather than needing everything spelled out in gruesome detail. Wine in the UK is not normally measured in imperial units, and presumably someone who was writing for the Guardian would know that. The problem is that we've framed the discussion so that only one choice of unit can ever be acceptable, and anything else is heresy. The problem with saying "the main units of distance are [always] miles" is that it implies that you would have to measure the size of a room in silly fractions of a mile; the Guardian's more neutral language does not lead to this silliness. Any fair minded person would have to read the Guardian as meaning that miles and pints are exceptions to the general expectation to use metric units, not that those are the only units of distance or volume that may ever be used. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The whole "measure the size of a room in silly fractions of a mile" bit was your straw man, not mine. I have made it perfectly clear that I consider it to be obvious from all these guides that miles are not to be used in cases where this was silly. While I considered it unnecessary, I added wording to that effect to the guideline.

And the question remains, if we don't always use pints, when do we use pints? Soft drinks like Coke are often served by the pint in bars, for example - are they to be measured in pints? What about water? Again, it's sold by the pint in bars. Does it make a difference if we're talking about bottled water, water on tap, water sold from bars (again, often by the pint), or water in the sea? You might come to a conclusion, and somebody as pro-imperial as you are pro-metric might come to the opposite conclusion. By contrast, the Times is pretty clear on when to use pints and when not to.

You are calling I find for the whole "can is not must" logic. Perhaps as retrospective justification for your decision to convert a fair few articles to metric per your own preference against the guideline. This is supposed to be a style guide to advise editors and improve consistency on Wikipedia - telling people to make it up as they go along like achieves neither aim. Kahastok talk 17:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Please feel free to move my contributions if they belong elsewhere. Unfortunately, I can't see where else to put them. The only thing I can think of is to move the sub-thread beginning with Dougweller's comment into a separate section or sub-section, perhaps entitled "Usefulness of The Times Style Guide". --Boson (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

As I've said and as has been repeatedly demonstrated in these discussions, it is hugely beneficial to have some way of demonstrating that we are not making it all up - such as by referring to the style guide that the whole thing is based on. It's the same underlying reason as for putting references in articles. The Times guide is clearer and requires less significantly interpretation to generate a list of units and contexts that should be excepted from a general metric-first rule. Kahastok talk 06:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You have said it frequently, but that does not make it true, and it has been amply demonstrated that it is not at all beneficial. The Times Style Guide differs from our recommendations considerably, so in that sense it is untrue to state that the MoS is based on it. If the original editors who put in the reference to the guide were intending the MoS to be based on it in any meaningful way, they were not successful. I am not criticizing; I know how the discussions go here, making any sensible change almost impossible, and it would not have been sensible to actually base our recommendations on the style guide, because it has completely different recommendations from what we need and practise. The degree to which it needs to be "interpreted" to achieve any degree of similarity with our MoS is an additional and unnecessary source of conflict. Has anyone else actually read the book in question? Would you like me to go through each point of the appropriate section in our MoS and point out the differences or uselessness of The Times Style Guide for our purposes? --Boson (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You've gone on and on about the differences in things that do not pertain to the choice of units on UK-related articles (such as whether conversions are to be used, or the choice of units on articles not pertaining to the UK). These are largely irrelevant and do not in any way affect our ability to use the guide as a basis for the choice of units on UK-related articles. And I find that you do not rebut the wider point, that it is useful to be able to demonstrate that we haven't just made the whole thing up ourselves. Archon in particular was particularly keen that this not be based solely on our personal preferences, and that is something I agree on. If it is not to be purely subjective, then it has to be based on some form of external standard. The Times is the best I've seen. Kahastok talk 17:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Journalists are not academically rigorous, as Wikipedia should be; so their guidelines should be discarded and the SI standard adopted in their place. Motorways are built in kilometres and marked in kilometres so road distances are officially recorded in kilometres. JJada (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of trying to be more rigorous and not just copying journalistic usage, but there are some cases where it's difficult to avoid using imperial in the UK. For instance, talking about a 112 km/h motorway speed limit is a bit silly, and will upset editors. It is useful to have external references, but not only one. Having one source seems to risk creating a straitjacket of "we must use stones, because the Times says so". In the case of articles about athletes, I think it makes more sense to follow the conventions used by the relevant sport, rather than just basing it on the country the come from. For example, it was argued recently that articles on Canadian hockey players should use USC units because that is the standard which hockey in Canada generally follows. But for many disciplines (in the UK and internationally), heights in centimetres and weights in kilograms are the norm. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would be particularly useful to demonstrate that we had taken our recommendations from a journalistic style guide, except to support the argument that our recommendations are likely to be inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. However the main problem is that the Times guide only occasionally supports our style guide. Obviously, there are a few similarities in that it mentions some of the same things, but what it says about those things is often different or ambiguous. I did find one thing where the Times stale guide agrees with us:

1. Personal measurements in heigth and weight. Continue to say she was 5ft 7in (1.7m) and weighed 9st 10lb (62kg)".

Even where they agree with us, though,t is a bit ambiguous because the "chatty", journalistic style, giving an example rather than a rule, means that the reader has to work out how specific the rule is. We assume it applies to journalistic "stories", where the exact height etc. are not important. Does it always apply, e.g. in contexts where precision is required, typically - but not exclusively - in scientific articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boson (talk • contribs) 14:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Something to be aware of is that The Times is aimed at a UK audience, whereas WP is aimed at an international audience. Using The Times style guide as a starting point is okay but there is no need to follow them slavishly.  Stepho  talk  00:00, 14 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 Wikipedia 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)

Agreed. But it's not clear that metric units are the ones people (students or not) are most familiar with in all cases, even in the UK. That's what we're discussing here. EEng (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Most students will be very familiar with the pint. And chances are they'll use miles in the sorts of instances we use them for. Kahastok talk 06:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

They will not become familiar with metric whilst sloppy journalists use imperial. We should take the lead and set an example. JJada (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't our job to determine what units the masses should use. RGloucester — ☎ 01:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind my saying that, in a discussion such as this one, the phrase the units the masses should use blew a few fuses in my brain's cognitive-dissonance protective circuitry. I might add that some readers are just dense. There seems to be a lot of inertia here. Can't you make a more fluid argument? EEng (talk) 18:55, 2 July 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". [See also: "21{{nbsp}}million 21{{nbsp}}million".] Jeh reverted [my change to a page]. 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)

I have always understood that use of non-breaking spaces is to avoid the possibility of a line breaking at that point. We use a non-breaking space to avoid a line starting with a unit symbol since such symbols may be less easy to interpret when separated from their numerical value. For example a line commencing

• l in size ...

is less intelligible than a line commencing:

• litres in size ...

even if the preceding line ends with a number like "5". It makes sense then to put   between "5" and "l", but doesn't provide a reason for having one between "5" and "litres". Non-breaking spaces, like other html entities, clog up the wikitext and attempting to over-control page rendering causes problems for display when rendered in browsers operating in narrow windows. I've seen an extension of the over-use of non-breaking spaces leading to nonsense like "twelve&nbsp;men, just and true". I'm certain that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Controlling_line_breaks agrees with my interpretation.

I suggest that we should not only make it explicitly clear that non-breaking spaces are not needed between numerals and full unit names, but also correct those examples in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers #Unit names and symbols that contain misleading markup like "25&nbsp;kilometres". --RexxS (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether to use nbsp or nobreak or thinsp or zwsp or any number of other layout adjustments, beyond the places where MOS suggests they ought to be used, is a choice that depends on all kinds of specifics of the situation; attempts to apply rigid logic are pointless, because typesetting and layout are about how something looks overall. You apparently want to forbid any use not explicitly allowed, but MOS should not prescribe (or proscribe) such things unless there's a repetitive problem wasting editor time over and over in local debates. Your example

"twelve&nbsp;men, just and true"

is not nonsense if there's a good reason for it in context.

And MOS#Controlling_line_breaks does not agree with you: it mentions several places where linebreaks should be controlled, and nothing about where they shouldn't be controlled. See WP:CREEP. EEng (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

By that logic we might as well not have a MOS because anybody can claim exemption from what we usually do because their particular situation is a special case - "a choice that depends on all kinds of specifics of the situation". On the contrary, MOS is a guideline that documents what is normal practice. You seem to think that the purpose of MOS is to forbid things: it most emphatically is not. Policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are descriptive, not prescriptive and that's an important distinction. You only need to look at {{convert}} to see what is normal practice on Wikipedia: numerals and unit symbols are separated by a non-breaking space; numerals and unit names are separated by a normal space.

It is precisely because HTML is a markup language, not a layout language that we try to allow as much flexibility as we can for the browser to control layout, and that is why we keep the use of non-breaking spaces to a minimum. In infoboxes and anywhere where space is limited, it may be desirable to exercise tighter control of line-breaks, but in running prose there is never any need to have nonsense like "twelve&nbsp;men, just and true" and I see that you've conveniently avoided giving any examples of where it is could possibly be sensible markup.

You're plain wrong about Wikipedia:Manual of Style #Controlling line breaks. The examples given accord exactly with normal practice, i.e. numerals and unit symbols are separated by a non-breaking space; numerals and unit names are separated by a normal space - with exceptions only where space is limited such as in infoboxes.

Finally, CREEP is a useful essay and contains this valuable advice: "WP:CREEP" is not a substitute for actual arguments. Lengthy instruction can be appropriate if it represents a broad consensus and does more good than harm. I commend it to you. --RexxS (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• No, I'm right about MOS#Controlling line breaks. It lists a number of places nbsp should be used, but says nothing about not using it elsewhere. And that's what I said it says.
• You're right I didn't give an example of a sensible use of "twelve&nbsp;men, just and true" -- I said there certainly are some. And then you supplied one -- an infobox or caption. Thanks.
• Your talk of a layout versus markup language is just something you made up. Browsers do a very good layout job when left to themselves, but sometimes we step in to tweak. You want to forbid that.
• The lesson of CREEP is that if we don't need a rule, we need to not have a rule. I'm not hearing any need for a rule.

I'd like hear what other editors thing. EEng (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you're wrong about MOS#Controlling line breaks. You say "And MOS#Controlling_line_breaks does not agree with you" Yet anybody who reads it can see that's untrue: there's not one example of a numeral followed by a unit name that is separated by a non-breaking space. That's the sort of consistency with common practice that I've suggested the examples on this page should achieve.

No infobox or caption should contain "twelve&nbsp;men, just and true" - how would you justify that?

If you don't understand the difference between markup language such as html and a layout language such as PostScript, then you shouldn't be pontificating about "sometimes we step in to tweak" when you've demonstrated no understanding of when it's appropriate or desirable to attempt to control web page layout. Yes, browsers do a very good job of matching page layout to window size and that's exactly why we normally don't attempt to override the usual browser behaviour. Avoiding an orphaned unit symbol is one of those rare exceptions; an orphaned unit name is not.

Again, you're confused by thinking the MOS is prescriptive. When we document a common practice in a guideline, we expect there to be exceptions. See WP:PG. You would benefit from gaining some understanding about the purpose of guidelines on Wikipedia. The MOS, like any other Wikipedia guideline, is not a collection of rules, but exists as a repository of guidance on how the community normally does things. --RexxS (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• If you don't think MOS is prescriptive, then you don't know the meaning of prescriptive.
• My point about MOS#Controlling is that it doesn't say you shouldn't use nbsp in cases other than the ones it exemplifies. It therefore doesn't support your idea that, well, you shouldn't use nbsp in cases other than the ones it exemplifies.
• A good example of an unusual situation where nbsp might be used (which arose in an actual article) is

first edition of Poems written by Wil. Shakespeare.

which might easily confuse the reader momentarily if rendered as

first edition of Poems written by Wil.
Shakespeare.

It's therefore reasonable to code this as

first edition of ''Poems written by Wil.{{nbsp}}Shakespeare.''

• I agree that usually there's no need for nbsp between a quantity and a spelled-out unit name. I just don't think we need a rule on this, because I don't see a pattern of overuse, or a problem caused by such a pattern. Can you point to such?

I'm still hoping other editors will opine, assuming they can figure out what we're talking about. EEng (talk) 04:40, 5 July 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 ^Hutton 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)

If I were to write an article about someone notable who was born in, active in the government of, and died in, the Belgian Congo (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a former Belgian colony, in which English is a second or third language at best), which guideline tells me which variety of English and which date format to use? To anyone that has spent time there, the correct result is obviously en-GB (really en-BE, if we had such a thing) and DMY, but how do we get there, hampered by the seemingly-incorrect modifier "English-speaking" at WP:STRONGNAT? The guideline makes sense without this modifier (with a couple of minor exceptions). (also being questioned at Talk:Albert Einstein) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Followup:Same scenario, except give the person a tie to an "English-speaking country" by making his mother a U.S. citizen living in the Belgian Congo. Now we have a tie that STRONGNAT would seem to want to use to force MDY, regardless of how wrong it would be for everything related to the article. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that people are tired of this subject, but I honestly do not see an answer to the question I posed above – I'm not trolling for a war. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have a very broad interpretation of "English Speaking Country". One that has never been accepted in any discussion that I am aware of.JOJ ^Hutton 18:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to amend the section and see how it looks.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You failed to get your way at Albert Einstein ([17]), and now you come here to make a change to a guideline that wasn't applicaple in order to force it to be applicable. Sounds like a bad idea. - DVdm (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's see -- what is it they say Einstein said? "If relativity turns out to be right, the Germans will say I'm a German, the Swiss will say I'm Swiss, and the French will say I'm a citizen of the world. If relativity turns out to be wrong, The French will say I'm Swiss, the Swiss will say I'm German, and the Germans will say I'm a Jew." EEng (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Right. - DVdm (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Its obvious that you want the article to continue to use DMY, despite a majority that went against you in the discussion. There just needs to be clarification in the MOS about when and when not to consider strong national tie. Thats all this discussion is addressing. An admin determined that the RFC was no consensus, but as it turns out, a previous ARBCOM, determined that in the case of a disputed date format, the format the article should revert back to the first date format used. In the case of Einstein, that is MDY. And an ARBCOM decision trumps a single admins opinion at a local discussion.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Do have a look at wp:DEADHORSE. - DVdm (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

What is your justification for your revert. Despite the fact that this discussion has been open for a while and you decided to not participate until now? You are still in the minority on this issue.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Read the replies. Lack of consensus to make that change. See wp:NOCONSENSUS, a policy. - DVdm (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTVOTE. EEng (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

But what is YOUR justification? What is wrong with making it clear that the English Wikipedia should use the date format of the English speaking countries? Why do you feel that the MOS should not make that more clear and precise?--JOJ ^Hutton 18:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

In short, read the replies, both here and at the RFC. - DVdm (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I want to hear YOUR reply about why this MOS should not make it more precise and remove the confusion. I've read your opinion on "current wording" of this MOS, but so far you have yet to give your opinion on why the MOS should not be amended so as to remove the ambiguity and create a more precisely worded guideline.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:CREEP. EEng (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The change by Jojhutton is not in accord with the guideline, because it said " strong national tie to an English speaking country takes precedent over non English speaking countries." But it isn't about taking precedent, for purposes of date format, a tie to a non-English speaking country doesn't count at all. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did struggle a bit over the wording, especially the word "precedent". But I believe that the point was that on the English Wikipedia, we should use the date format of the English speaking country that the subject has strong national ties to, over non English speaking countries. Why this isn't clear to some people, I don't know. We need to make it more clear.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've let this rattle around in the back of my head and I think I have a solution. The real issue is whether the date format matches one of the common formats used in predominantly English speaking countries and whether it uses one of the calenders used in those countries. This rules out things like ISO 8601 order (common in Asian countries), Japanese calendars (based on the reign on the current emperor), etc. In practice, it limits it to the Gregorian calendar expressed as 12 July 2014 or July 12, 2014. Minor formatting issues of whether it uses periods, commas, spaces, dashes, slashes, etc can be ignored to fit one of those two acceptable formats. For a concrete example, Germany traditionally used d.m.yyyy and this is an easy match to 12 July 2014. So I propose that we change MOS to state that strong national ties to a country that uses a date format closely matching one of 'd mmmm yyyy' or 'mmm dd, yyyy' shall be preferred. In the case of Einstein above, he realistically has two countries to be associated with: Germany using 'd mmm yyyy' and the US using 'mmm d, yyyy'. There might still be an issue over which country has has stronger ties to (his native Germany or the adopted US) but either format is otherwise acceptable and neither would be ruled out. For other people emigrating from say Japan to the US, the Japanese format would be ruled out and the US format would be used. Comments?  Stepho  talk  02:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason for using a date format popular in, for example, the United Kingdom, when writing about a person with strong ties to that country is that we anticipate that more people from the United Kingdom will be reading the article than people from other countries. In the case of an article about a German, we would expect most Germans would read German-language articles about the person, not the English Wikipedia article. There is no way to guess what variety of English the readers of the article about the German will be most comfortable with, so there is no reason to prefer one date format over another. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Fractions vs decimals in imperial units

Many moons ago I wrote articles converting cm to inches with fractions - such as in Banksia ericifolia - and felt more comfortable doing this. Somewhere along the way I passively and not unhappily went along with using decimals of inches, such as in current FAC Epacris impressa. Someone else has stated they prefer the fractions. I can't see anything in MOS or MOS archives about this...has this been discussed before and do we have a consensus? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The "moons" is not a MOS-conpliant chronological unit, so you'll need to repost before we can start arguing about this.

For years, a strict reading of MOSNUM did not allow any standard time measurement longer than a day, so think yourself lucky. Kahastok talk 21:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have information on that, but have some observations. Banksia ericifolia has:

9–20 mm (⅓–¾ in)

MOS:FRAC says to use {{frac}}:

9–20 mm (1⁄3–3⁄4 in)

Ideally {{convert}} should be used so future editors don't have to wonder if the conversions are correct or have been changed. However, convert can only handle one value of fraction in the output, although it will reduce the fraction if appropriate:

• {{convert|9-20|mm|abbr=on}} → 9–20 mm (0.35–0.79 in) (this line is to show the values)
• {{convert|9-20|mm|abbr=on|frac=4}} → 9–20 mm (1⁄4–3⁄4 in)
• {{convert|9-20|mm|abbr=on|frac=8}} → 9–20 mm (3⁄8–3⁄4 in)

A problem with fractions is that they are pretty crude as far as conveying information regarding precision, although for this context precision is not appropriate. I find going from 1⁄3 to 3⁄4 to require too much mental effort—it's hard to compare the values. Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Defending the fractional way of life against creeping decimalization

The benefit of fractions with imperial units is that the units themselves are not decimally-based, so the subdivisions are very often give awkward decimals. 4.1 feet is not a nice number of inches. 5.2 pounds is not a convenient number of ounces. But in those situations the best solution is to use the subdivision explicitly (e.g. 4 ft 2 in).

As to divisions of units like inches, ounces, that don't have a standard subdivisions, fractions are probably more traditional and decimals may look wrong to some - but may be clearer to others. Personally, I don't have a strong preference either way. Kahastok talk 21:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• If you read WP:UNIT, you'll see that mixed units are preferred for the imperial system. Fractions should be used, as the system is not a decimal system. Mixed units, like "5ft 2in", should be preferred. In instances where there is no commonly used smaller unit, like with the ounce, use fractions. Imperial units don't make sense, frankly, when put into decimals. That's not how they were meant to be used. RGloucester — ☎ 22:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about all cases of this question, but if the inches (as in the example) are a parenthetical conversion from a measurement given in the source in decimal (obviously) millimeters, then I think the inches should be in decimal as well. I certainly see decimal inches in some engineering contexts (though sometimes they're obviously modernizations of fractions, as e.g. a 1.125-inch bolt) and for the scientific context of the OP that seems right too. But I don't have this clearly thought out. EEng (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Are we using : or * for each comment? It started out as colons.

Some readers like imperial measurements and these readers nearly always think fractions are quite natural. Other readers prefer metric measurements and these readers nearly always prefer decimals. I don't come across many people who like imperial measurements with decimals and I don't come across many people who like metric measurements with fractions. Also, when we use a measurement on WP we should make it agree with the source reference. Some fractions like ⁠9+1/2⁠ can easily be converted to a decimal like 9.5 but some like ⁠9+1/3⁠ either lose precision by converting to a shortened decimal like 9.3 or gain unwarranted precision as 9.3333333333333 (typically measured with a tool that is accurate to only a few decimal places). Luckily we {{convert}} which is happy to deal with imperial fractions and decimal metric units. Readers who have trouble with imperial fractions can just ignore them and look at the decimal metric units. Similarly, readers who never quite made the transition to metric can ignore the metric units and just read the familiar imperial fractions. Both sides are happy and can ignore the other side.  Stepho  talk  01:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Peaceful coexistence is for pussies. There should be a fight to submission, so that one approach becomes the glorified master and the other the despised slave. EEng (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I've been spending time at Did You Know, where for some reason they all use * on everything. I'm afraid I've become infected.

WP:DATED

...gives the example "Humans diverged from apes long ago, but only recently developed fire." One plausible theory is that cooking developed first, then homo erectus and eventually humans. See Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. There must be a better analogy. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I changed the example to Humans diverged from apes long ago, but only recently developed state legislatures. EEng (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Good one. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, though there's evidence that legislatures developed first, before man split from apes. EEng (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

We didn't split from apes. We are apes. We split from chimp/bonobos. Jimp 03:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, smartypants. Please fix the example. ("Diverged from other apes"?) EEng (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonsensical entry under "Accept" column for date formats

The rationale for

• this edit (edit summary: you're not thinking carefully about this. As you have it the one Acceptable is the right replacement for both Unaccepts, and that's not true because the Unaccepts are ambiguous. Like I said we could lv Accept. empty, but please discuss on Talk)

in WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Date formats really escapes me. There is no uncertainty about the ambiguity: it is stated under the comments. The question marks ??-?? barely gives a hint unless you already know what it is trying to say, and would belong under the comments if you really want to use it. I think it is amply clear, though a few more words (e.g. "the day–month ordering is ambiguous"). The location of the bad format under the "Acceptable" column is the worst of all options. Besides, it is the one acceptable version for what is meant by both unaccepts (which, if you can disambiguate if you really want to, though a suitable choice of day > 12 for the example would achieve the same purpose. —Quondum 04:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the original example wasn't nonsensical, but rather the best I and a number of other editors could come up with for a case that was just a bit different from all the others, and therefore didn't quite fit the format of the table. I think the OP's latest modification of the example [18] is a good one and solves the problem pretty well. EEng (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks – I'm glad there's something that is a reasonable fit all around; getting the right meaning across is tricky. And apologies for the wording that I chose above – I need to be less insensitive to the issues that others have considered and what they've achieved. —Quondum 06:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

As you may have seen I made a further adjustment which, in combination with your earlier edit, gives us something quite effective instead of just the least awkward of several bad alternatives. EEng (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Per mil

There've been unanimous comments at Talk:per mil to return the page to per mille and I'm launching its formal process now. That could go either way: per mil does seem to have an honest lead at Google Scholar despite being unbearably misleading and less common in general use. Maybe the people who come by to comment now will have a different feeling from those who have already stopped by.

Regardless of that page's status, though, I propose we suggest not using written "per mil" as a matter of house style (as here, here, here, here...). We can build a bot so that each use links to the subject's article and people are still going to misunderstand it as "per mil[lion]". It's not an issue worth having, particularly when any page using ‰ in a technical context should be using the symbol in the first place and when "per mille" is (A) etymologically more correct; (B) just as common in general use; (C) not unknown in technical use; and (D) not possible to confuse with ppm. (In the article on property tax, even if it is less common in general use, we should be using "mill" to fit with all the other phrasing on the page.) What do you guys say? — LlywelynII 12:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I would support using "per mille" generally, because it's less ambiguous (also "per mil" looks somehow "wrong" to me; it looks like it should mean "per millilitre/millimetre" or "per mil"). Archon 2488 (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Kilowatt-hour

• This is prompted by a discussion at Template talk:Convert#Kilowatt-hour.

{{convert}} provides two units for kilowatt-hour; one is for "common usage", while the other outputs the correct middle dot per WP:UNIT. Examples:

• {{convert|123|kWh|abbr=on}} → 123 kWh (440 MJ)
• {{convert|123|kW.h|abbr=on}} → 123 kW⋅h (440 MJ)

Kilowatt hour asserts 'The symbol "kWh" is most commonly used in commercial, educational, scientific and media publications'—including "scientific" might be overdoing it, but the others are correct in my experience. Given that kWh is commonly used, what should be the output from convert? Should the above example using kWh give the same output as kW.h? Or should it be up to the editor to decide which to use?

The only discussion I can find is at 2008 MOSNUM. In May 2014 there were 61 converts using kWh in 36 articles, and none using kW.h. I prefer that convert gives the editor the choice of how the output should appear, and I support the principle that Wikipedia should follow real life rather than lead it. However, if a strong consensus wants the middle dot, that's fine too. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just noticed that several energy units have been carefully designed to allow the editor to either insert a middot or not.

No middot: µWh mWh Wh kWh MWh GWh TWh

With middot: µW.h mW.h W.h kW.h MW.h GW.h TW.h

I wonder if Jimp would like to explain the history. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Just to echo here my arguments from the preceding discussion: consistency (among units and with standards) is more important; the claim about "real-life" usage has not been supported by studies.
  And, in fact, my point was that conversion to kilowatt-hours ({{convert|123|MJ|abbr=on}}) should produce "kW·h" instead of "kWh". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Re {{convert|123|MJ|abbr=on}}: That's just a matter of specifying the output unit (|kW.h), or changing the default output unit for MJ and friends. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The default output should be according to MOS (with "·"). I doubt that the dot-less output is needed (that is, I think that both "xWh" and "xW.h" parameters should produce "xW·h"). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Another thought is that some people actually misunderstand "kWh" as "kilowatt per hour" (similarly to "psi", which is "pound per square inch"), whereas with "kW·h" the meaning is clear. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Those people do not even know what the dot means. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• kWh is by far the most common usage (even in scientific papers), so it should remain the default. The concatenated unit has the same meaning as the dotted unit anyway; they both represent a factored unit. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No! For example, "m·s" means "meter-second", but "ms" means "millisecond". Please read WP:UNITS, the standards and the previous discussions. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • "ms" is not a concatenation but a prefix. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Both kW h and kW·h are correct symbols for kilowatt hour. By contrast, kWh, while sometimes used as an abbreviation, is not a correct symbol. MOSNUM should promulgate correct use (kW h or kW·h). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Statements such as "KWh is not a correct symbol" misunderstand what we're doing here. kWh is not a formal scientific symbol, but like it or not it's the long-established convention, in authoritative sources, for topics such as e.g. Electric energy consumption, and articles on those topics should (even must) follow that usage. Thus convert and other templates must offer kWh as an option, along with the other two -- purists who happen to be tinkering with the template must not impose their views on what should be, instead of what is (in reliable sources, that is). EEng (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. Wikipedia does not "promulgate" any usage, correct or incorrect; it strives to reflect the usage of reliable sources, giving preference to the best sources in any given topic area.
  • I did not mention Wikipedia. Only MOSNUM. Surely the purpose of MOSNUM is to promulgate a uniform practice throughout Wikipedia? If not that, what else? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I misunderstood you -- thought you meant WP "promulgating" to the wider world, as in trying to set a good example of ideal usage. I see now you mean MOS setting an example/giving guidance to WP editors. Yes, that's what MOS is for, but again, what MOS promulgates is what's used in reliable sources, and that varies from field to field. So, as mentioned, while in a physics papers you'd see kW{{middot}h or kW h, in a discussion of consumer energy conservation you'd see kWh. EEng (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I have also seen KWH used on utility bills. I'm not sure I have ever seen any extra characters added. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"KWH" in bills is probably a dark legacy of ancient printers that did not have any glyphs except numbers ans capital letters. :–) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Above it is asserted that many scientific publications use kWh. I can't say I read any scientific publications devoted to electric power generation and distribution. However, the IEEE has several publications devoted to this area including IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, and IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. The IEEE provides "Preparation of Papers for IEEE TRANSACTIONS and JOURNALS" (April 2013). That publication on page 2 states "Use the center dot to separate compound units, e.g., 'A·m2.'" I suggest this indicates that one of the largest scientific publishers in this field has chosen middle dots, therefore, if WP:MOS does the same, it is not pushing a novel or marginally accepted practice. I would like to see WP:MOS continue to recommend the choices recognized in official standards, that is, the middle dot or the space. Of course, articles should follow WP:MOS except when WP:IAR applies. I take the comment by Dondervogel 2 at 15:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC) to mean that Wikipedia articles should not contain statements that widely used language is incorrect, but that does not mean that Wikipedia articles should use such language if it does not conform to the language used in the best sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You're wasting your time arguing whether kWh is or isn't used in scientific papers. It clearly is in sources such as discussions of consumer energy consumption, national energy policy, etc., and articles on those topics will therefore use it. Speaking of IEEE, here for example is IEEE's own "Smart Grid Forum" [19] -- a bit bloggish, but still clearly IEEE-sponsored (and IEEE is very careful about its publishing standards) using -- ta ha! -- kWh with no dot and not space. You're focused on standards for the highest-level, most formal journals, and that isn't appropriate for all articles.

If the question on the table is, What should the convert template to, the answer is that it must off dot, space, and no-dot-no-space as output options. If the question is, what should articles use, I think we should leave that to editors of individual articles. If and when it appears that there's a recurring issue that wastes editors' time, that would be the time to think about adding something to MOS. EEng (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The piece cited by EEng as an example fails. Doug Houseman or his copy editor can't even get the capitalization of units and symbols right. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the question is whether MOSNUM should promulgate good practice or common practice. In my opinion it is good practice that should prevail. I see a clear parallel with Mbps vs Mbit/s, where the latter is recommended by MOSNUM because it is the internationally agreed symbol, and therefore unambiguous. The same logic applies here. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not a very good parallel because there is no division in kWh. No-one who understands basic algebra would insert a division there would they? I've never seen it with a centre dot here in the UK. Even the article that we cite in our Kilowatt hour article as evidence of confusion uses kWh without a dot or space. Dbfirs 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There are many instances of less-than-ideal usage which are not bad enough to create confusion, such as irregardless or "I could care less." That's no reason to encourage such less-than-ideal usage. There is also the danger that someone who is familiar with the meaning of "kWh" but not familiar with some other compound unit symbol may use "kWh" as an exemplar to decide how to (incorrectly) construct the symbol for the other unit. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Crikey, will you get a clue? OK, tell me that the Lawrence Berkeley Lab is sloppy and unreliable as well [20] This is as hopeless a quest as were earlier attempts to get mpg in articles about automobiles changed to miles/gallon. Forget it. You're wasting everyone's time. EEng (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I can tell you that people at LBNL are not better than in other places, and thus it is not surprising that the draft that you refer to is not something to rely upon (besides "kWh", it is typographically disgusting in many respects). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You're wasting yours and everyone else's time EEng (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, "psi" and "scfm" have an invisible division in them. :–) As I pointed above, the kilowatt-hour article even mentions the "kilowatt per hour" confusion explicitly, so this problem is not so illusory. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 10:50 pm, Today (UTC−4)

"kWh" is the only way I have ever seen it in the electric utility industry or in news articles. The pattern is the same with Wh, MWh, GWh, and TWh, not to mention similar units like kVA and MVA. I am unable to recall the last time I have seen "kW h" or "kW·h" in a utility industry communication or in a news article; I suspect that I may never have seen the units written that way, in many thousands of occurrences. Call it original research if you like, but you would be hard-pressed to show even a tiny minority of sources using anything other than "kWh". Offering the dotted option in the convert template is a kindness to pedantic editors and wikiprojects that dictate a specific style for units, but widespread use of the dotted option on Wikipedia would be contrary to the vast majority of real-world usage. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Jonesey above, with most of my work in energy-related projects, "kWh" is near universal, and even "kW-hr" will have wider usage than "kW(dot)h". Our article on the unit of "kilowatt-hours" can explain the proper units, but for any other case, we should be using the most recognized units. --MASEM (t) 03:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that "communications or news articles" are oriented on plain-text typesetting, and they used to be authored on regular typewriters that simply lacked the interpunct symbol. For the same reason there are no equations, for example. Here we don't have such technical limitations, so why not to follow the standards? Especially, since this would be totally free: just type {{convert|...}} and get the perfect results! — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not listening. Different topic areas use different symbols. One of them is kWh. Stop wasting everyone's time. EEng (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng, I was replying to Jonesey95. Please do not change the indent level of other users' comments. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Mikhail, I'm replying to you. Stop wasting everyone's time. EEng (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the history of why when the unit was added to {{convert}} the option of the dotless abbreviation was given, I don't completely remember the specifics (it was almost seven years ago) but this must have been before MOSNUM had anything to say about it and given that "kWh" is so common I guess including it must just have made sense. If I were adding the unit to the template now, though, I'd probably comply with MOSNUM and wouldn't give the dotless option. So, do we fix the template or the guideline? My preference would be for uniformity as opposed to making an ad hoc exception for watt-hours. There are plenty of abbreviations in use out there that we don't allow. If we were to take an anything-goes approach, why have a MOS at all? Jimp 14:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

By including kWh as an option we are complying with MOS, because what MOS says is Unit names and symbols should follow the practice of reliable sources, and as abundantly demonstrated above, in some subject areas RSs use kWh. I point out that MOS' guidance "Indicate a product of unit symbols with & middot; or & nbsp;" is part of a table headed "General guidelines", not "Rigid restrictions". So far this debate has gone on at the convert template's talk page, and here on MOS, but -- tellingly -- AFAIK not in the context of any actual articles. This is a solution in search of a problem. In fact, to put an end to this I make the following proposal:

Regardless of the niche usages of the "kWh" notation, conversion from MJ to kW·h implies that the main units in the particular article are the SI units, so the result of the conversion should also be formatted according to the SI rules. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 10:33 pm, Today (UTC−4)

This is ridiculous. If -- as is obvious from the below will happen -- kWh is endorsed as an option (along with kW h and kW·h), then the output of convert will need to offer kWh as an option (along with kW h and kW·h) for its output. You're trying to use the machinery of convert as a back-door way to force people to insert a space or dot in kWh (at least when they use convert). WP:STICK EEng (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Add to WP:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Specific_units, in the Energy section, a new row as follows: kilowatt-hour ... kWh / MWh / GWh ... Where reliable sources in a given subject area (such as energy supply and consumption) do so, the symbols kWh, MWh, GWh (with no space) are used in place of (for example) the formal kW h (i.e. with space) or kW·h.

• Support. EEng (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support, suggest to also add MWh and GWh (but no others) as common usage when you start talking power plants. Other magnitudes of "watt hours" typically are otherwise not used frequently enough to require this. (I rearely see TWh used, usually that gets spelled out better, for example) --MASEM (t) 16:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Added MWh and GWh to the proposal. I left it intentionally ambiguous as to Wh since, really, it's use in RS that controls, so just let editors figure that out if it comes up somewhere. EEng (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I wanted to make sure it was clear it was only to their specific decimations of the Watt-hour unit. I could see someone trying to argue mWr (milliwatt-hr) as the "right" unit display, though at that magnitude, the units typically switch over to joules. The three listed as explicitly the only prefix-ified versions of "watt-hour" that would be acceptable due to their common usage). --MASEM (t) 00:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

So you're OK with the wording? EEng (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose because the proper symbol will not confuse those familiar with the proper way of writing metric units, but the incorrect symbol may very well confuse those who are just learning to write metric symbols correctly. Also "kW-h" is wrong. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC), sentence struck in response to change in proposal at 18:30 UT.

• It's not wrong. It's not consistent with how other units typically are written, no question, but its an artifact of how the energy/power industry worldwide use the symbols. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed hyphen to middot. Jc's reasoning would be an argument for changing mpg to miles per gallon in articles on cars, and converting all articles to American English. Wikipedia follows reliable sources in whatever subject area is being treated. EEng (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the same reason as Jc3s5h, and because in the absence of a good reason not to, it makes sense for MOSNUM to follow international standards. Precisely the same reasoning as for nmi (nautical mile), kn (knot) and bit/s (bit per second). If you follow widespread use why doesn't MOSNUM advocate use of nm, kt and bps for those units. I am not aware of an internationally agreed symbol for mpg, which makes it a poor counter-example. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for knots and so on, but the reason bps is a no-no is that its a well-known source of confusion because of its bits-bytes ambiguity. Your fetishizing of "international standards" is a red herring. We follow the sources in each topic area, not "international standards" (unless that's what the sources follow).

Tell you what. Why don't you go change all the uses of kWh at Electricity meter, Emission standard, Energy density , Cost of electricity by source , Feed-in tariff , Financial incentives for photovoltaics , Feed-in tariffs in Germany , Energy in the United States , Solar power, Solar power in Massachusetts and see the reaction. Then come back and let us know. EEng (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I did do that once. For kilotonnes (kt) and nanometers (nm) I mean. Before I learnt of the existence of mosnum, I changed them one by one to knots (kn) and nautical miles (nmi). I encountered lots of resistance of the kind you anticipate, from editors who preferred kilotonnes and nanometres. International standards are sources in their own right, of a kind, and the most reliable sources follow them. When I discovered mosnum I found an easier way. Make a good case here, and others will follow. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You did that once for some other units, but not for kWh. You can't keep saying that "the most reliable" sources use certain terms when we've clearly shown that there are perfectly good sources that use a different term. Here are more: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Now go start a discussion at Cost of electricity by source -- see what kind of laugh you get. EEng (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The place to make the case is not in individual articles, but here in mosnum. And that is what I am doing. I agree that use of kW h is rare (which just means that reliable sources are rare), but I see no advantage in departing from a perfectly simple multiplication rule that is easy to explain and easy to understand. Use of the correct symbol would also make it easier to understand that kW h is a product of kilowatt and hour. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Now you're showing that you really have the wrong end of the stick. Ultimately these decisions are made on a case-by-case basis in articles -- that's why MOS is a guideline. And we don't add a new "rule" to MOS unless it's clear that editors in individual articles are wasting time rehashing the same old issues. What's being proposed here isn't a rule but an "anti-rule", reaffirming, specifically in the case of kilowatt-hours, that editors of each article should follow the notation of RS in that topic area. EEng (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You are entitled to your view. I am entitled to mine. Can we agree to disagree? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That would have a much more appealing ring to it if you weren't advocating dictating, to editors of articles you have no interest in, that they write those articles in a certain way that serves your sense of symmetry and order, even when the sources in the topic area do it another way. EEng (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

First, MOSNUM is a guideline - editors can choose to follow that guideline or not; second it is not my sense of symmetry that matters here, but the consensus of editors on MOSNUM. It seems we cannot agree even to disagree :P Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No, in general editors are expected to follow MOS, though MOS itself allows for "occasional exceptions" in accord with "common sense". I agree your sense of symmetry doesn't matter here -- I didn't say it did. EEng (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"use of kW h is rare" because the vast majority of reliable sources do not use it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• "dpi" is another example like mpg, then, we don't use "dots/inch". --MASEM (t) 18:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. as it supports common usage, whatever the rights or wrongs most reader would think that any other form is a mistake. MilborneOne (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. spare us from ugly unneeded dots.Constant314 (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and dots aren't recyclable and are a major cause of climate change. EEng (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. If you really want to use the non-standard notation, at least change the wording from the prescriptive "are used in place of" to a permissive "can be used". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You're still confused. The standard notation is whatever is standard in the topic area a given article treats -- you want one particular source to be the "standard" for everything. What the proposal says is

Where reliable sources in a given subject area do so, the symbols kWh, MWh, GWh are used ...

And the reason it says that is MOSNUM's general provision that Unit names and symbols should follow the practice of reliable sources. We follow the practice of sources in the topic area. EEng (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Kilowatt is a SI unit, hour is accepted for use with the SI, so the appearance of "kW·h" is governed by the SI standards. If you can find a different "standard in the topic area", we can consider it to be more important, otherwise — rely on SI. The argument of "practice" is flawed, since it does not tell what to do if different "reliable" sources use different notation ("kWh", "KWH", "kW·h", "kW-hr", whatever)? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 10:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)

[With what I hope will be the permission of my esteemed fellow editors, the following has been converted to a comment from a (pseudo-)subsection so as not to confuse where further comments/supports/opposes should go -- EEng (talk)]

• Comment EEng has diverted this discussion from the topic on the {{convert}} template to advocating the "alternative" notation in MOS. I suggest splitting his/her "proposal" into a separate topic and continuing here the original thread (which is related to conversion between different units, not to a particular unit itself). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

oh oh ... Mikhail, Ohconfucius appears to have removed this because it may impute wrongdoing to EEng without much evidence of it (as far as I can see). You've reverted it back in. Well, you're entitled to do that, but does it assist calm, clear debate? Please assume good faith, and remember that this page is subject to DS. Best. Tony (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Changing MOSNUM is a legitimate question on its own, but it is not directly related to the {{convert}} questions. I believe, separating these two topics will promote clearer debates (for example, where people are supposed to put their comments about the original topic now?). I do not know how to do this split correctly, so I asked for the help from more experienced users. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten that this is the MOS talk page. So we're having a MOS discussion. EEng (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support original proposal. The MOS is not a voluntary set of guidelines; it's a style manual. Editors can follow it or not as they choose when creating text but must not undo changes made later to ensure consistency with the MOS. So MOSNUM should explicitly say that the commonly used forms like "kWh" are permitted. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for consistency and simplicity. We don't have to follow whatever we see out there. Jimp 11:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we do, as the next two Supports explain. It's only when there's a conflict between sources of comparable authoritativeness (in the field) that we make a choice of our own. EEng (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - The first bullet point of the MOS says, "Unit names and symbols should follow the practice of reliable sources." The proposal is simply codifying this. There are few sources that use the delicately punctuated versions. There is no significant ambiguity with the proposed symbols. ~KvnG 14:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Delicately punctuated" is certainly the right phrase. EEng (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Peter coxhead. It's a bit like MB and MiB: it makes no sense to have more than one ways of expressing kWh – the other different forms are hardly ever used in RL, and may confuse readers. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the proposal doesn't mandate using kWh (no space, no dot) exclusively, since I'm sure there are e.g. physics contexts in which space or dot is used. Rather, the proposal makes it clear that kWh is an acceptable choice, when it's what sources in the field use. EEng (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I think what we are discussing is whether one should use the symbol kW h or the abbreviation for that symbol kWh. I see no good reason not to use the symbol myself, but my opposition to use of the abbreviation is based on the desirability of clarity. The analogy with MB vs MiB is not a good one because MB and MiB are symbols that mean different things, and to use MB when you mean MiB is clearly incorrect. To use kWh when you mean kW h is not wrong, just an unnecessary barrier to clear communication. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I would like to see scientific references which use "kW·h" or "kW h", especially since the SI unit would be 3.6 MJ. I would think, in fact, that kWh should be the lead abbreviation in kilowatt hour, per actual use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per common use, no we don't have to follow whatever we see in real life but we are writing an encyclopedia to be readily understood by as many of our readers as possible. Given that the majority of sources use it and most of our readers would be familiar with it is precisely why we should be using it. We should never use an abstract, unfamiliar form. WCM_email 22:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Believe it or not, this discussion now has its very own ANI thread! Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:EEng EEng (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support as "kWh" is so prevalent in literature directed towards general and technical readers, while as noted by others J is preferred in much scientific literature. For information, checking some favourite print compendia of definitions, conversions and values I found "kWh" (Perry's Chemical Engineers Handbook, 6th edn, 1973, McGraw-Hill, Table 1-4 Conversion Factors; Larousse Dictionary of Science and Technology - previously published as Chambers (UK) or Cambridge (US), 1995, Larousse), "kw h" (BS350:Part 1:1974 Conversion factors and tables, British Standards Institution, 1974 (1998), p58; CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 68th edn, 1987, CRC Press, pF-245), and spaces used in other units but no example of "kW h" (Tables of Physical and Chemical Constants, Kaye & Laby, Longman, 15th ed, 1986), but no examples of "kW.h". NebY (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see what's so difficult about "write metric units according to the SI convention"; there is no need to invent different rules for every unit (what is the rule for newton-metres? what about joule-seconds? etc.) and following convention promotes consistency, which aids intelligibility. If some people don't understand SI convention, that is not our responsibility. Ultimately the BIPM is the only authority on how unit notation should work; WP editors should not presume to know better than the organisation that maintains the standards. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support A few contributors here feel that "exactitude" is more important than readability. Most reader's monthly electric bill will use kwh (with various forms of capitalization). The US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission uses KWh in their regulations.[26] The term "kW•h" will be unfamiliar to most readers and confusing to math majors trying to figure out why we are using a dot product in a unit of measure. We should not punish readers because they have never heard of "SI" units. Wikipedia should use the terminology that is in widespread use; not obscure terms from some standards committee. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to describe the world's most important standards organisation, which is responsible for defining the SI units (and thereby, in effect, all others), together with the standard notation for using them, as "some ... committee". Archon 2488 (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

SI may be an "important standards organisation" but some of their units are not widely used in publications targeted at the general public. Wikipedia articles targeted at the general public and should not be full of elitist terminology. (Some SI units are widely ignored in the technical press.) -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for an example from federal regulations! However, the heading of that document says "Unofficial", ;–) and it merely describes some changes in other documents. Could you please find the actual official documents? (I'm also suspicious about the apparently interchangeable usage of "power" and "energy" in their language.) Regarding "unfamiliar and confusing" — aren't the dot notation for multiplication and the multiplication of units included in the school curriculum in English-speaking countries? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"exactitude" -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"We should not punish readers because they have never heard of "SI" units." If someone has heard of a kilowatt-hour, then they have heard of an SI unit (or at least, one of the SI's "addon" units). As Mikhail says above, the dot denotes scalar multiplication, and the product of two scalar physical dimensions is indeed a scalar product. I don't see how this is confusing. Even the idea behind omitting the space is that the multiplication is implicit, as in algebraic expressions like "2y". The question is simply which notation is the less ambiguous. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It think it's worth noting that not a single actual document or paper has been presented so far using anything other than kWh. EEng (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Because people advocating the consistency and standard-compliance understand that solitary examples are insufficient to make any conclusions about the general situation. Moreover, the existence of general standards (mentioned several times above) means that anything special about particular units is simply unnecessary. If you want to see something country-specific, here are some US-related documents:

• Federal Register notice of May 16, 2008, 73 FR 28432-28433. Interpretation of the International System of Units for the United States PDF,
• U.S. Metric System (SI) Legal Resources and references therein.

People from other places can probably provide similar documents. If you claim something different, please provide the corresponding style guides or at least a reliable study about the "real-world usage" (so far, only poorly formatted texts have been presented as a supporting evidence). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

None of the documents you linked appear to contain the string kw so I don't see what they have to do with this at all. I repeat that you've never pointed to even a single use of kW-dot-h or kW-space-h. Not one. Just a lot of "standards" apparently implying dots or spaces ought to be used, but no evidence anyone actually obeys that. EEng (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment So here's sumtin' really interesting -- NIST's Rules and Style Conventions for Printing and Using Units. It says

Reference [4: ISO 31-0] suggests that if a space is used to indicate units formed by multiplication, the space may be omitted if it does not cause confusion. This possibility is reflected in the common practice of using the symbol kWh rather than kW·h or kW h for the kilowatt hour. Nevertheless, this Guide takes the position that a half-high dot or a space should always be used to avoid possible confusion

So there you have it. NIST says don't use kWh; ISO says it's OK (and so does APS [27]). The problem with appeals to the authority of standards bodies is that, contrary to what some seem to think, there is no one controlling standards body and, as just seen, they disagree. We use what workers in the field actually use, not what someone says they ought to use.

I think the arguments on both sides have been thoroughly ventilated now, and it's time for a close based on the strength of those arguments. Anyone? EEng (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have finally found reliable sources! :–) Just to supplement your comment, the NIST quote continues:

...; for this same reason, only one of these two allowed forms should be used in any given manuscript.

(it is not clear whether this passage is about "kWh" or all units). And a small note: ISO 31-0:1992 was superseded with ISO 80000-1. Do you know whether the "suggestion" mentioned by NIST is still there? It would be interesting to see the actual wording. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "finally" -- if you think the other sources, to which I and several other editors have linked before now, aren't reliable then you don't know what a reliable source is. Anyway, I'll be happy to extend similar congratulations to you in return when you adduce even one source -- even one -- that actually uses the dot or space forms. EEng (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I can offer you a source that uses a space if you want, but we all know such sources are rare, so I don't think it changes anything. I have stated before on this page that MOSNUM should follow international standards unless it has a good reason not to. This applies not just for the kilowatt hour, but for all units. I will look up the precise wording of ISO 80000-1:2009 on multiplication of units. Watch this space. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• This search gives several hits for "kW h". I will look op iso 80000-1 next. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• The relevant text from ISO 80000-1:2009 reads

A compound unit formed by multiplication of two or more units shall be indicated in one of the following ways:

N • m, N m

NOTE The latter form may also be written without a space, i.e. Nm, provided that special care is taken when the symbol for one of the units is the same as the symbol for a prefix. This is the case for m, metre and milli, and for T, tesla and tera.

While the wording could be clearer, I infer from this that kWh is a valid symbol for kilowatt hour and I withdraw my objection to the proposal to use it. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There's hope for you yet! EEng (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I consider the previously given sources unreliable. But the NIST quote refers to a standard and says "common practice" — that's all I asked for.

Taking into account the ISO 80000-1:2009 text and the NIST comment, I suggest extending your proposal with this kind of more general wording (for example, "mAh" should be included; maybe there are other such units) and these references. It also needs to address the consistency issues, so that "kWh" or "kW·h" must be used consistently within an article (I don't know whether is it desirable to demand consistency with other units, for example, that "N·m" and "kWh" should not be used within one article). I think, it would be a much more reasonable approach. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support per common use. It is not uncommon to concatinate factored units in general, and in math it is done all the time; (a · x) becomes (ax), etc. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but in the case of units these concatenations can lead to ambiguities such as ms^-1. But in fairness, there is only one way to parse "kWh" in terms of the SI unit symbols, even if it's not really correct SI, so it's less important. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I will guess that some of the advocates of little-known SI units have never explained a new technology to an audience with mixed backgrounds. The key to success is to use terms the audience knows, not to impress them with technobabble. Wikipedia has an audience with a wide range of backgrounds. A reader with a Masters of Business Administration may want to read about power generation, they should not have to research the units. I am sure the financial community has some really esoteric terms from important standards originations that we could use to explain the cost of power production. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• The goal of consistent ways of making compound units in SI is to make it easier for people from different fields to understand unfamiliar units, because everyone writes them the same way. But since Americans are willfully ignorant of SI, the goal isn't fully achieved. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

And so it begins... EEng (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The point remains: nobody has explained how promoting inconsistency allows for greater intelligibility. If you stick with the BIPM standards and try to understand them, rather than just assuming the BIPM consists of a crowd of best-ignored inbred scientists and engineers who do nothing other than engage in intellectual masturbation, then you will understand the motivation for using consistent mathematical notation. Disambiguation. Precision. Unambiguity. But all of this is of second-rate importance compared to the goal of pandering to the innumerate. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Nobody has explained how promoting inconsistency allows for greater intelligibility." Explanation: An article can't be consistent with everything, so choices must be made, and Wikipedia's choice is to value the intelligibility gained by consistency between a given article and external literature on the same topic, more than it values the intelligibility gained by consistency between that article and other articles on other topics.
• Since you bring it up, since BIPM stands for Best-Ignored Perfectionist Masturbators (formerly BIISE -- Best-Ignored Inbred Scientists and Engineers) what did you expect? I really think it would be for the best if someone closes this discussion before the inevitable comparisons to Nazis make their debut.

EEng (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is the world's most important metrology organisation "best-ignored" in discussions about measurements? Is that not like saying that the IPCC is best ignored on questions of climatology, or that the UN is a marginal group of political masurbators? In what other context would this level of disregard for major international organisations be accepted? Archon 2488 (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• oppose MOS instruction creep. I am opposing both the previous proposal, of using the convert template to enforce the middle dot spelling, and this proposal, of using MoS to enforce the spelling without. Since both spellings are evidently correct and in use, this is not in need of regulation (beyond consistency within articles). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The proposal isn't meant to favor any of the three (space, dot, no-space-no-dot) but simply clarify that no-space-no-dot is as acceptable as the other two, the final choice being determined by what's used in sources for any given article.

I agree with you re CREEP -- as I said early in this discussion, "If the question is, what should articles use, I think we should leave that to editors of individual articles. If and when it appears that there's a recurring issue that wastes editors' time, that would be the time to think about adding something to MOS". I finally made this proposal since in general, compound units do use either middot or space, and several editors wanted to interpret that as meaning "no-space" is forbidden.

If there's a modification of the wording you think would better express the "equal footing" of kW h, kW·h and kWh, that would be welcome. EEng (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support "Kw h" is very uncommon and in fact I have never seen it any of the papers I have read. "Kw.h" is confusing and seems to me like a file of some programming language. "Kwh" is by far the most used abbreviation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait, nobody is proposing to use "kW.h". What people are discussing is "kW·h", with a middle dot (and "kW.h" is being used only as a convenience shortcut here in this discussion). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "kW·h" is even worse. It uses a non-standard keyboard character. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The mid-dot '·' can be inserted by clicking on it in the special symbols a little below the edit section, along with –—×÷←→ and similar symbols. I have also created the {{kWh|45}} template that displays as 45 kWh.  Stepho  talk  09:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
        • The middot (or interpunct) is commonly used to denote scalar multiplication – it's a standard symbol. You can enter it easily on any html page as &middot;. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Also: Interpunct#Keyboard input and Typography keyboard layout. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you think that an argument with wrong capitalization ("Kwh" instead of "kWh") looks convincing? ;–) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support per reliable sources and common usage. Dbfirs 11:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (re kWh proposal)

[Side question: For me at least (IE 11.0.10) the Proposal subsection above doesn't appear with an [Edit] link -- anyone know why that is?] -- EEng (talk)

• Support - Changing my position from comment due to pervasive usage, but with the following strong caveat: that the wording restricting its applicability to a subject area not be weakened. —Quondum 14:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

But you're OK with the current wording? EEng (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's say I consider tweaking as a next step, with the current wording just squeaking in on acceptability. There are wordings I'd prefer, e.g., "are used" to become "may be used". I agree with QrTTf7fH's sentiment below (and thus would prefer a strong oppose), but since this appears not to be WP's stated role, I'll put that aside. If, for example, WP was to clearly distinguish style as its own, and content as reference, I would oppose. But since this seems a fuzzy area, I'll not venture there. —Quondum 17:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment – Some of the above discussion seems to ignore what the purpose of a MoS is; there is also some heavy emphasis on personal preference. A MoS is to provide a guideline for uniformity despite style variations elsewhere. I would suggest that an encyclopaedia that spans the world would do better to simplify its style guide where possible even if this does not entirely reflect dominant usage. We need to accept that any style guide will inherently cut across some styles used somewhere else, and that some readers will have to become familiar with a new style. I'm sure that if we continue to accumulate exceptions to easily stated rules, the MoS will become increasingly unworkable. Could someone please link to the place in the MoS where it says to use the notation or style dominantly in use in notable sources? —Quondum 23:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Glad you asked:

• WP:MOSNUM#Choice of units: In most articles, including all scientific articles, the main units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for angular speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.)
• WP:MOSNUM#Unit_names_and_symbols: Unit names and symbols should follow the practice of reliable sources.

• In conjunction with that let me repeat (slightly modified) something I said earlier:

An article can't be consistent with everything, so choices must be made, and Wikipedia's choice is that the value of consistency between a given article and external literature on the same topic is greater than the value of consistency between that article and articles on other topics.

• Some sources using kWh include [28] [29] [30] [31] [32].
• And finally, the proposal (since it's getting hard to find above) is to add the following to Energy section of WP:MOSNUM#Specific_units:

kilowatt-hour ... kWh / MWh / GWh ... Where reliable sources in a given subject area (such as energy supply and consumption) do so, the symbols kWh, MWh, GWh (with no space) are used in place of (for example) the formal kW h (i.e. with space) or kW·h.

EEng (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I walked into that one. It seems that my suggestion of retaining simple and reasonably uniform style guidelines in the interest of manageability is not enshrined as a principle. Also, I would personally not have adopted the principle that Unit names and symbols should follow the practice of reliable sources, but would rather have built on the requirement for SI units to be expressed as the SI mandates. Your mention of "Wikipedia's choice" is not obvious. (Is that codified somewhere? Not that I'm going to challenge it.) Unit names and symbols should follow the practice of reliable sources is probably the crux of it, and in particular the intent behind it. It does not address the matter of whether frequency of use by reliable sources is a factor, so it may be argued that the use of SI units mandates their usage as per SI.

Your suggested wording reflects the sources being from a restricted area. I suspect (gut feel only) that in areas of physics, where there is occasion to use these units, the SI standard may dominate. With the restriction of the subject area as given in the suggestion here, however, and if the usage is agreed to be pervasive within that area, I find it difficult to object despite my own liking for uniformity and a particular style.

I'll leave the open issues of interpretation that I've highlighted to others to debate, if they wish; some rewording (especially of the quoted piece in WP:MOSNUM#Unit_names_and_symbols) might be useful. —Quondum 02:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the idea is that, for example, someone who reads about a topic on WP and then decides to get serious about it shouldn't find himself realizing that WP taught him notation different from that in the outside sources. An example: articles on engines talk about RPMs, but if we rigidly adhered to SI, those would probably have to be expressed in Hz or, I suppose, radians per second. That would be completely insane and make WP a laughingstock. Can you trouble you for an explicit support or oppose? EEng (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I would not agree with that "idea"; this kind of "WP taught me something different from what I'm expected to use" problem cannot be avoided. When the outside sources overwhelmingly use one notation throughout a discipline your comment is fair, but when it is varied within the discipline (even with a relatively dominant notation), I see no reason to use this argument. Your example of kWh etc. related to electrical energy generation and consumption by a populace may be an example of overwhelming use (I get the feeling fro others' posts above that this is the case).

I have a feeling that the MOS should make calls of this nature on a more specific basis, rather than making the call on how to make a choice. Thus this could be a setting precedent, not a formula for a decision, and future specific choices could be made in the MOS without allowing editors to say "I'm changing this article to XXX style, since the MOS says if sources do it, that's how it must be. My evaluation is that sources do it." I would rather see consensus be reached in each case on whether the particular usage justifies a specific deviation from the SI mandate. With that in mind, may I suggest the following?:

kilowatt-hour ... kWh / MWh / GWh ... In the subject area of energy supply and consumption, the symbols kWh, MWh, GWh (with no space) should be used in place of (for example) the formal kW h (i.e. with space) or kW∙h. These unspaced symbols are overwhelmingly used in this subject in outside sources.

This I could support. —Quondum 03:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I had a careful explanation of why jumping to that kind of specificity is opposite to usual MOS practice, but my machine crashed and I lost it -- haven't the heart to recreate it in full. But in brief: MOS prefers, where experience suggests the specificity its guidance is inadequate, to titrate in additional guidance slowly, drop by drop, until the litmus paper just changes color (if you get my meaning), rather than dumping in the whole bottle of additional guidance right at the start. (Changing the wording to call out energy supply and consumption as the exact area concerned, instead of as just examples, would be dumping in the whole bottle. Anyway, I just grabbed those two topics because I knew they applied -- there are many others that would have to be on the list as well.)

I hope that made sense. EEng (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Your analogy could be interpreted exactly the other way around, where giving general guidance rather than dealing with only a specific case is the whole bottle: it has far greater impact. Generality tends to bite in unexpected ways. But: I do not have particularly strong feelings on this, and I'd suggest waiting for comments on this perspective from others first. —Quondum 04:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree (strongly) with most of Quondum's analysis. The main place we might differ is that where Quondum writes "SI" (International System of Units) I prefer "ISQ" (International System of Quantities). One benefit of the ISQ over the SI is that it is more inclusive, defining, for example, units like the decibel, the megabyte (and, yes, even the loathed mebibyte) and the nat. That makes it more applicable for a platform like Wikipedia. The ISQ has broad international consensus across a broad spectrum of disciplines. In a nutshell: one simple rule is better (easier for everyone to follow - even the readers) is better than lots of complicated ones with countless exceptions. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Our evidence (above) is that this restriction is unnecessary, because the watt-hour is not often used in physics. The joule has superseded it. That's why we've struggled to find examples of watt-hour notation in physics. We find it in material for the general public such as news reports and energy bills and we find it in government and policy documents, though even there it is elbowed aside - compare the use of kWh in the domestic section of the UK government's Energy Consumption in the UK 2014[33] with the use of ktoe (thousand tonnes of oil equivalent) in the remainder of the document[34] as discussed on page 8 of this part.

In short, when we find the watt-hour we normally find Wh. When we look for it in fields where we'd expect a mid-dot or a space, we rarely find it at all. We don't need to impose a restriction in the MOS because it's already inherent in the sources. NebY (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense, but there are articles that use the watt second. Should that be W s, W·s or Ws? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What do articles currently use when presenting data in watt-seconds and using a symbol or abbreviation? NebY (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not just call the watt-second a joule, which is what it is? Archon 2488 (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't help noticing a glitch in the logic above (by NebY and Archon 2488). You cannot mandate anything such as "just use the joule instead of the watt-second in Wikipedia". And while the watt-hour is not a typically used unit in physics, it is valid and would occur in contexts discussing equivalences or in intermediate results in which hours are convenient. You do not have to go far to find an example: look at the lead of joule. We must therefore be careful to avoid mandating the use of the abbreviated units anywhere but in fields in which we have identified that use of the abbreviated units are the norm. And while I agree with what Hallucegenia says below, it should not be taken to imply that the industry standard unit should take precedence over the units elsewhere. —Quondum 14:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Strong support I think it is important for us to remember that kilowatt-hour is a non-SI unit used mostly by the electricity supply industry, where the abbreviation is overwhelmingly kWh. The SI unit of energy is the joule. Though the kWh is a non-SI unit accepted for use by the BIPM, it does not seem to me that authorities on scientific notation should take precedence over an industry standard usage for an industry unit. Hallucegenia (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

To avoid any doubt, this translates into Strong support.The kilowatt-hour is a non-SI unit used by primarily by the electricity supply industry, and that industry universally uses kWh as the symbol. To do otherwise in Wikipedia articles on electricity supply undermines, in my opinion, the encyclopedic credibility of those articles in the eyes of industry specialists. Articles on scientific subject that refer to electrical energy should use SI units such as Megajoule. Hallucegenia (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: Wikipedia is falling in a spiral where the most popular (mis)conceptions dominate and even become the rule; let's not continue this terrible practice. We must remember that truth isn't decided by majority. Just as we don't need to keep quotes identical character per character (Typographical changes are permitted for the sake of keeping a consistent look), we shouldn't “recommended” to follow a convention just because it's the most popular one in the industry. “Kwh”, “MW_e”/“MW_th” all arose because of the failure of people to follow the relevant standards, which are there for a good reason. The general case of concatenating units (Without space) to indicate product leads to ambiguous results, like “Gs” for gauss-second (But that's already used for Gauss) or “Tm” for tesla-metre (But that's prescribed by the BIPM as the construction for terametre) and hence are disallowed by the relevant standards (SI brochure). Following the recommended convention of mandatory product symbol for units (Including space) for some units while disregarding it for others would be an inconsistence. Recommending “KW⋅h” would be neither original research nor correcting great wrongs, it's supported by the relevant standards (I.e: reliable sources). Whether a part of the industry has unfortunately chosen to disregard that and deform a part of the language (Concerning the representation of unit) shouldn't make us follow such a deformation as well; were this the case, for the same principle we should be using slang like “gotta”, “ain't”, “bro”, etc... for the articles on pop music; or “lol” for the articles about Internet culture (And I'm not talking about quotes, but the encyclopedic text itself). I suggest that the Manual of Style keeps recommending the expression KW⋅h in encyclopedic text but to keep whatever representation is used in quotes. Regards. QrTTf7fH (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

• If you want to propose a change to MOS' provision that "the main units chosen will be SI units ... or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic", go ahead, but this discussion is needs to be done in the context of that MOS' provision as long as it's in force.
• You've put your finger on another reason MOS says what I just quoted: because otherwise, the units in the article text would clash with the units in quoted material. Come to think if it, that may be the main reason for the provision in the first place.
• Let me ask you: if article says that an engine achieves 200 hp at 5000 rpm, do you want that changed to 149 kilowatts at 83 Hertz (or maybe 524 radians per second)?

EEng (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Giving engine power in kilowatts is quite common outside the US. As for whether you measure cycles per minute or per second, follow the convention that makes sense in terms of the field or industry you're talking about. Archon 2488 (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question, which was whether you'd accept an article saying an engine operated at "5000 rpm", or not. EEng (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I said that I would expect the article to express frequencies in terms that make sense in the appropriate context (i.e. whether the time unit is the second, minute, hour, etc). For vehicle engines, this would obviously be minutes; I don't see any reason why it would be given in revolutions per second. Radians per second are dimensionally equivalent, but conceptually somewhat different, to hertz (similar to grays and sieverts, or joules and newton-metres), so substituting one for the other wouldn't generally make much sense. As for the notation "rpm", it's an established convention and there is no SI equivalent in any case, unlike a unit derived from SI standards such as the kilowatt-hour. For comparison, nobody bothered to invent consistent mathematical notation for the Ye Merrie Englande units, so we have lots of made-up abbreviations such as "mph" "mpg" "psi" and even stranger beasts such as "ksi" and "psf". There were half-hearted attempts to invent pseudomathematical notation such as lb_f/in², but that never really caught on. Given that I view these latter units as little better than pseudoscience, I don't really have a horse in the race as to how they are written. Archon 2488 (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it's mostly people in the United States who have a preference for the deprecated horsepower and their deprecated customary units as well. In the rest of the world, it's quite common to state mechanical power in kW and I'd not hesitate to add the corresponding conversion to an article. I'd use both RPM and s^-1 for describing an engine speed, but usually not rad⋅s^-1 because that's a unit for a different quantity (Related to rotation frequency by a factor of $2\pi$; see angular frequency). The encyclopedic text needs not follow the same conventions of its quotations. Like I said, were this the case, we'd be pressed to use terms “gotta”, “wanna”, and so in the encyclopedic text of an article if the article includes a quote using those, or to keep ALL UPPERCASE WHERE IT'S PRESENT IN THE ORIGINAL QUOTE. Your first point seems to me too vague to understand. Regards. QrTTf7fH (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

Yes, it's a slippery slope. If we allow kWh we'll have NO ARGUMENT AGAINST ALLOWING ALL CAPS. We'll be trapped. EEng (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) If it's actually a quotation - i.e. we're representing the point as being word-for-word what the original said - then we should represent it as exactly as we reasonably can. If the text we're quoting uses the words "wanna" or "gonna", we don't change what it says - we use "wanna" and "gonna". If the text we're quoting gives a distance in smoots, we don't convert it to metres. If the text we're quoting gives a power in solar mass-areas of Wales per cubic dog-year, then we don't convert it to watts, horsepower or anything else. If it is in a quotation.

But I suspect that it not what you mean. What I suspect you mean is that we do not have to use the same style choices as the sources that we cite, which is true. We do not. In that case, we follow the rules set out in the MOS, which are based on common practice rather than formal official standards. In many cases they will coincide - but sometimes they won't and this appears to be such a case. Kahastok talk 20:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought units in quotations should be converted in square brackets? Notwithstanding some people's fondness for nonstandard units, giving distances in smoots only (if that was, hypothetically, what appeared in the quotation) would not be very helpful. Archon 2488 (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

But that does not mean that we do not follow the conventions of the quoted text. We would never, ever, no matter what the circumstances, quote the Proclaimers as singing "But I would walk 805 kilometres, and I would walk 805 more, just to be the man who walked 1609 kilometres to fall down at your door". We follow the convention of the original quotation, which gives those distances in miles. And it wouldn't matter if the song was Australian, or French, or Chinese, or if we were discussing quotes of written or spoken prose. If it is a quotation, we don't change the text.

But as I say, that is distinct from following the conventions of sources we cite, which we don't do. Kahastok talk 21:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support use of "kWh" unspaced where appropriate. I do not accept that there is any significant likelihood that these units will be used outside the contexts of electricity generation and supply. I would suggest that there is no realistic probability that the lack of space or middot will cause misinterpretation or ambiguity. Kahastok talk 17:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It's used quite a bit for hybrid and pure electric cars in relation to the battery capacity.  Stepho  talk  23:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment If it's any help, I've just done a Google search on the ieee.org website, which is one of the authoritative organisations mentioned above. Searching for ' "kWh" site:ieee.org' yields 24,000 results, and all of the instances on the first page of results are genuine references to kilowatt-hours. On the other hand, searching for ' "kW·h" site:ieee.org' yields just 2000 results. The first page of results includes four references to "....kW H-bridges"; one instance each of "kW h", "kW/h", and "kW-h"; and two articles that use "kW.h". None of the results on the first page use the notation "kW·h". For me, this is conclusive. Is anyone out there who would be able to close this discussion? Hallucegenia (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  Hallucegenia, this is effectively an irrelevant point if it is not tied it to a principle of the MOS related to general external usage. Outside usage does not override the MOS. Would you care to do make this link? What we are doing is saying that when outside sources are essentially consistent in a particular style, it seems unreasonable to break from such a style in WP. EEng made this link rather weakly, IMO, and I have implicitly accepted it. —Quondum 20:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Unit_names_and_symbols.Unit names and symbols should follow the practice of reliable sources. Hallucegenia (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That is what I called weak. It does not supersede the requirement for SI units. I was hoping for a principle, not a quote of a line of which the intention was probably to deal with ambiguous cases not already handled. —Quondum 00:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment. We are not discussing choice of units here, so the "requirement for SI units" is not relevant. We are discussing the appropriate symbol to use for kilowatt-hour, which is not an SI unit. The Manual of Style says "Unit names and symbols should follow the practice of reliable sources". (This is in the first line of the section on Unit names and symbols, not a special case to deal with ambiguous cases.) It is the principle we should follow. Actual practice in electrical power engineering and electricity supply is to use "kWh" as the symbol for kilowatt-hour. "kW·h" may have some abstract theoretical justification, but it is not used in practice by reliable sources. So Wikipedia should use "kWh" in articles on electrical power engineering and electricity supply. Hallucegenia (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• A small consideration: are you sure that the search engine is able to find "·" properly? I mean, it might work with a reduced character set in order to simplify indexing (which is suggested by getting "kW h", "kW/h" and "kW-h" results for the "kW·h" search). And a question: Can you do the same for "mAh" before this discussion is closed? Or we are going to get separate discussions for each particular unit? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment (ec) I don't think the Google search proves a thing. What does matter IMO (coupled with my previous observation that kWh is permitted by ISQ rules) is the definition (as 3.6 MJ) by IEEE Std 260.1-2004 of the unit kilowatthour (symbol kWh). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• and from IEEE/ASTM SI 10-2010

• The symbols for certain compound units of electrical power engineering are usually written without separation, thus:
• watthour (Wh), kilowatthour (kWh), voltampere (VA), and kilovoltampere (kVA)
  Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Good work, Dv! Now it's really, really time for a close. Who wants to volunteer? EEng (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad you found it useful. The full reference, in case needed, is American National Standard for Metric Practice IEEE/ASTM SI 10™-2010 Revision of IEEE/ASTM�SI�10�2002), IEEE, NY, 11 April 2011. (This does not change my own position by the way, which remains neutral, but if it helps others decide one way or another, then it still serves a useful purpose). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Prolonging the agony on kWh

Thank you Dondervogel 2. At the risk of prolonging the agony, it seems to me that the wording of the IEEE standard is more comprehensive and straightforward. We should quote it directly in the MOS:

VERSION H: The symbols for certain compound units of electrical power engineering are usually written without separation, thus: watthour (Wh), kilowatthour (kWh), voltampere (VA), and kilovoltampere (kVA). Hallucegenia (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree that this is pretty much the nail here, to support EEng's proposal as an allowance when talking for these units in the context of electrical power engineering. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to this, I think it should be changed slightly:

VERSION Q: In electrical power engineering, the symbols for certain compound units are usually written without separation, thus: watthour (Wh), kilowatthour (kWh), voltampere (VA), and kilovoltampere (kVA).

I might point out a further similar unit: A⋅h (which on batteries is usually Ah or mAh). —Quondum 00:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I had the same thought of using the IEEE/ASTM SI 10-2010 text, but kept it to myself because as you may have heard, some people think I'm mean and bossy, and I was afraid to endanger the consensus already building. So what will we do with it?

• The list in the IEEE/ASTM text is certainly meant to be just examples -- if kWh is OK then certainly so is MWh.
• If we say In electrical power engineering that will be taken literally as the exact boundary of applicability, and there will be endless arguments about whether e.g. a battery charger for an electric car is "electrical power engineering". So we should keep the "conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic" bit from the MOSNUM general guidelines.

Therefore I suggest:

VERSION E: In some topic areas such as power engineering, symbols for certain units are usually written with neither space nor · -- for example Wh, VA, Ah, and so on; as well as (for example) kWh, MVA, GAh, and so on. Follow the practice of reliable sources in the article's topic area.

Again, the purpose is to make it clear that editors should, as always, look first to sources in the article's topic area, and specifically to make sure they don't feel guilty about breaking the pristine space-middot convention, if sources indicate they should do that.

I'm assuming all the supports would be happy with one of H, Q, or E, or some melding of them. Can those of us who have not dropped dead from exhaustion and are still watching, hammer out a final version we can all support, and then we can ping all the old participants for a new round of supports on this new verions. OK? So first, comments please on H, Q or E (or tell me if I'm assuming too much). EEng (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem endorsing such a proposal (I will not split hairs between three different versions), now that people have actually bothered to find a supporting standard, rather than just inventing one. In passing, I must remark how much it amuses me that standards organisations are not inbred masturbators when they tell you what you want to hear. Now if only certain people would at least bother to furnish us with a legitimate standard for bronze-age crap like "stones". Archon 2488 (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You still have it backwards. The significance of the IEEE/ASTM standard is that it convinces a certain group -- those who think (contrary to WP guidelines) that standards are the final authority -- to stop arguing about this. It doesn't mean that standards are, or ever were, what controls WP's approach to this question or to other similar questions.

It's helpful to look at standards because they can explain why sources follow the practices they follow, and especially where sources follow conflicting practices, it's probably because they follow conflicting standards, and looking at the standards can help us understand the whys and wherefores, which in turn helps WP come to its own decision.

A second reason to look at standards is that they often express things well and comprehensively, and to the extent they say what MOS wants to say, they can often be cannibalized.

But those are the only reason for looking at standards -- not because they control. The sources in the topic area control. And not because I say so, but because MOSNUM says so. EEng (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC) P.S. All this talk of masturbation and "stones" is beginning to evince an unhealthy preoccupation.

Hallucegenia, Quondum: Can you opine on H vs. Q vs. E? EEng (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Between them I'd go for E. —Quondum 06:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer H, because it's the shortest, but would support any text that prefers "kWh" over "kW·h". Hallucegenia (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason for the middot is rather obvious. It avoids ambiguity. Consider the Coulomb, or Ampere-second. If it were symbolized as "As" the potential for misreading would be rather obvious, while "A · s" is quite clear. The professionals in the IEEE standards committees, rather like wikipedians, donate their valuable time to hash out these standards. They are not doing so as a form of "masturbation" but rather because they have a legal and moral obligation to the public and their clients to get these things right. Confusion gets people killed, and that is something to be taken very seriously. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The only problem with that fine piece of reasoning is that, as we've seen, it's IEEE itself which endorses omitting the space and middot where there's no ambiguity. And as seen as there's clear consensus to follow that practice in articles where sources on the article topic do so. Based on Hallucegenia and Quondum's comments, I'm going to install Version E in the live guideline, contingent on their being no objection by the supports so far to the slight expansion it represents over the proposal originally discussed. EEng (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, on reviewing the current standard, para 3.5.3.2 seems to be your point of reference. "The symbols for certain compound units of electrical power engineering are usually written without separation, thus: watthour (Wh), kilowatthour (kWh), voltampere (VA), and kilovoltampere (kVA)" is the only exemption offered to the general rule "To form the symbol for a unit that is the product of two or more units, use either a raised dot (called a middle dot in computer technology, Unicode character 00B7), which is preferred, or a space." I would have to do some archeological work to find out just when those exemptions were added, but they are certainly there now. I can accept that for the specific cases of the Wh, the VA, and their multiples there is no risk of ambiguity, particularly as they are to be applied in electrical power engineering. Your wording at "E", however, invites broader application of the concatenation of symbols, as per my earlier example. This invitation I contend still needs addressing. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that only geeks can edit. MOSNUM appears to be inhabited by geeks with advanced science degrees whose ideal unit of measure includes a character that is not on a normal keyboard and requires a superscript or subscript. You get bonus points for needing a convert macro. We should follow reliable sources not some scheme that is a grand unification theory for all symboldom. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What, there's no space on your keyboard? That's novel. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I was not just talking about the kWh unit. In general when a new user attempts to edit an article they see a blizzard of markup language. This example has a high degree of difficulty: Gmiddot; M^minus;2 -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Your "example" has the disadvantage of not being a real unit, or a real anything – giga per square mega? Archon 2488 (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

We try to avoid the one extreme of requiring 5 university degrees and 10 years expereince to edit WP or the other extreme of simple editing allowing it to look like twitter entries by 15 year olds.

Is the capital M supposed to represent M for Mega or is it supposed to be lowercase 'm' for metre? We get blasted for being too picky but also get blasted for being inaccurate or ambiguous.

When you edit an article there is a small set of commonly used symbols slightly underneath the main edit. This set includes – — ° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § . Click in the article at the position you want the symbol, then click on the symbol one you want and it appears in the article. Takes longer to explain it than to actually do it. Simple.  Stepho  talk  23:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

%

As a side point, I have no qualm with the underlying assumption in our treatment of percent: non-technical pages can write it out and technical pages & infoboxes should use the sign.

However, the page currently reads as if we are saying non-technical pages (as a matter of style) should always write out the numbers and percent. That can't be right. Surely, in an article on Christianity,

• seven to ten percent of Arabs are Christians is fine;
• seven to ten % of Arabs are Christians is wrong;
• 7 to 10 per cent of Arabs are Christians is not good; and
• 7.1 to 10% of Arabs are Christians is fine.

Not only fine, but better. We should include an example in our treatment to make that clear. — LlywelynII 12:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

(We're talking here about WP:PERCENT.) MOS has a longstanding prejudice against mixing "verbal" and mathematical/symbolic forms (as your last example does) -- your last form is explicitly deprecated among the the "scientific" examples and I predict there would be significant resistance to changing that.

How would you feel about taking your example a step further, to 7.1–10% of Arabs? That's explicitly OK in MOSNUM, though under "scientific". However, the non-scientific/scientific divide is gently stated ("commonly used", "more common") and I'm not sure you'd have a problem using that form in a non-science article.

My usual advice is that changes shouldn't be made to MOS until it's clear there's a chronic, recurring problem that is wasting time at the article level. If you want to use that form in a certain article, why not go ahead and try it and see what the response is? EEng (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

And easier to read as:

• 7–10 per cent of Arabs are Christians is not good; and
• 7.1–10% of Arabs are Christians is fine.

Isn't there a rule in MOSNUM about consistency of decimal places? 10.0%? Tony (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's some talk of precision at MOS:DECIMAL and MOS:UNCERTAINTY. If/as this discussion continues, beware confusion of significant figures vs. decimal places. EEng (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No. 10 Downing Street and so on

Right now we've got

Proper names, technical terms, and the like are never altered: 5 Channel Street;   Channel 5;  Chanel No. 5;  Fourth Judicial District;   Fourth Amendment;   Fourth Estate;   Fourth Republic

-- and that's fine. But what about certain conventional situations that aren't proper names e.g.

Along the south side of X street are No. 123, where Historical Personage died, and No. 137, where Infamous Killer lured his victims.

-- ? In English usage, at least, reference to Number. 123 or No. 123 are conventional -- do we require the text to say Number 123 every time, or is No. 123 OK here?

In older American usage you see that some time, but nowadays (it is my impression) it's more common to write "at 123 was This, and at nearby 137 was That."

Anyway... thoughts on writing "No. 123"? EEng (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Bump EEng (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What's happened to all the MOS warriors?

has the fire gone out? Can't I get a peep re the above? EEng (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this will be much help, but as a Briton, I can tell you what I do myself. I personally use the numero sign, as in № 10 Downing Street. I do speak the "number" allowed. I personally would advocate for using the numero sign, as opposed to "number", which is never written out as far as I know. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the American usage of "123 Such and Such Road" started seeping in, and I've certainly heard "10 Downing Street" being used occasionally on BBC News reports in recent years, whereas they would've previously said "№ 10". RGloucester — ☎ 22:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If "No." is the common usage, I'd say keep it unaltered. For a Canadian example (though not related to a street), Leduc No. 1. Resolute 22:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• If it's the world according to MOS you seek, your answer is here: MOS:NUMBERSIGN. Oddly, it's not found or referenced on the "Manual of Style/Dates and Numbers," but on the first page of "Wikipedia:Manual of Style." I edit a lot of sports articles and the number abbreviation rules come up a lot as many sports fans want to insert the number sign symbol (#) directly into text, which is a no-no. I had to go looking for the specific MOS section, and was a little surprised to find it elsewhere than on the MOS numbers subpage. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I was aware of NUMBERSIGN though I couldn't remember where it was. Leduc No. 1 is covered under the proper names rule. I guess what I was wondering was whether the flat prohibition on No. might be relaxed in this situation where convention strongly endorses it i.e. "house numbers", such as in the examples above, for times and places where that was the convention. [See below] The weird thing is I had an actual article situation when I posed the question, but I can't even remember what it is now! I don't know... I do think this usage should be allowed. Anyone want to propose text? EEng (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I had misremembered NUMBERSIGN. I thought it said not to use No., but it looks like it allows it, so I maybe this entire discussion is a waste of time. Sorry. Or am I still mixed up? EEng (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Follow the practice of reliable sources?

The sentence about following the practice of reliable sources was inserted in this edit by User:Pmanderson. That editor never accepted the concept of the Manual of Style picking one acceptable style choice over another. Not surprisingly, the edit was just thrown in, without resolving the resulting contradictions it created. For example, the MOSNUM at the time of the edit stated (and still states) that there should be no space between a number expressed in Arabic numerals and the percent sign, even though some reliable sources do put a space there.

I think the statement should be qualified to indicate it does not apply in cases where the MOS or MOSNUM has decided to chose among acceptable alternatives. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about this:

== Units of measurement ==

[etc} [etc] [etc]

===Unit names and symbols===

• Unit names and symbols should follow the practice of reliable sources.

What MOSNUM says about formatting %/percent isn't part of the "Units of Measurement" section, so your example doesn't apply.

This text says only that unit names and symbols should follow sources. It's pretty narrow. Furthermore, at the time it was added it was only one of a half-dozen mentions throughout MOSNUM (still there) that sources in the topic area should guide. And regardless of how it got there, it's been present for almost four years. Is there an actual, non-hypothetical problem you're trying to solve i.e. disputes among editors that would go better in future if a change such as you suggest were made? EEng (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Official sources from the BIPM and NIST choose to treat "percent" as a unit name and "%" as a symbol, even though Wikipedia chose to list them in the "Numbers" section. There are also variations in reliable sources about whether there is a space between the numeral and "°C". Jc3s5h (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I repeat: is there a non-hypothetical problem you're trying to solve? Can you point to a dispute that's arisen that would have gone better had the kind of change you're proposing been in place? If there's no need for yet another MOS provision, then there's a need not to have a new MOS provision. EEng (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The way I see it, the quoted statement point conflicts with others, so it should either be removed, or it should be clarified to take lower precedence. After all, its only logical intent is to apply where other MOS provisions do not already indicate what is needed. And the need to not have an unnecessary provision is a good argument for simply deleting the line. —Quondum 03:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Touche. Sort of. Actually, the logic of WP:CREEP isn't entirely reversible, for the following reason. If we take as a first approximation that more rules reduce conflict and debate (though possibly at the expense of strangling other desirable things), then when one considers adding a rule, one ought to be able to point actual conflicts under the rules as they are which you claim the new rule will prevent. But when we consider removing a rule, we have to think about whether or not conflict will be increased in the future -- without the rule -- and unfortunately that's a hypothetical about which we can only surmise. Anyway...

IMO something of this kind is needed, because without it, in any area on which MOS does not opine, editors have no touchstone at all from which to proceed to decide what to do. If you look back you'll see some extremely petty disputes about -- dunno -- whether gasoline in Scotland should be measured in imperial pints, or something. You'll see the cease-fire agreement at WP:UNIT. I stayed out of these disputes, but I watched, and one thing I believe in retrospect is that awful as they were, the general principle that we look to sources on the topic made them less awful than they would otherwise have been, because it gave the disputants a place to start.

Anyway, I was planning to propose the following:

In general, unit names and symbols should follow the practice of reliable sources.

Again, please remember the text in question occurs in the section on "unit names and symbols", so it has very narrow applicability anyway. However, I really don't think we should go further than this until we know what actual problem we're solving. EEng (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I think some of the recent conflicts about kWh vs. kW h, or KiB vs KB, are cases in point, in terms of the discussions on this talk page. Some editors treated "follow the reliable sources" as a principle that prevented the MOS from selecting one choice from among several acceptable choices. But this was never an established principle because when the text was created it created contradictions and those contradictions have never been resolved. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. In dozens of articles editors had happily resolved among themselves to use kWh, by applying their common sense (as the top of every MOS page urges them to do) and looking in the sources on the article topics -- the "reliable sources principle" worked well. It's only because someone came here wanting to overturn that principle that we ended up in that long discussion, and added a clarification so it wouldn't happen again.

At least in that case we had an actual question to answer (i.e. the formatting of kWh). What you propose is to now resolve all potential conflicts in advance. Again, I urge waiting until an actual problem arises that someone cares about. EEng (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll accept the "wait until we have a test case" rationale, but I will point out that the kWh example only went the way it did because the general usage within the subject area appeared to be effectively universal. The phrase "the practice of reliable sources" falls a little short of capturing that. —Quondum 05:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, yet there's remarkably little trouble nonetheless. EEng (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This rule raises the question of "what is a reliable source?". It tends to get interpreted as "follow the majority" even when that majority is unreliable. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly – this is fertile ground for disagreement, but I guess we'll have to wait for a skirmish to review this. (And I would not say that the closely related kWh thing was "remarkably little trouble".) Other that these two, uses of the phrase "reliable sources" abound on the page, but in all but these two cases in it is highly constrained and generally serves as an additional final constraint, not as a (first!) requirement. But I'm anticipating the discussion ;-) —Quondum 14:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

When I say "remarkably little trouble", I'm thinking of the many discussions on the talk pages of individual articles which get resolved amicably, with those who inhabit MOS none the wiser. Editors hanging out here see only the hard cases where tempers flare. EEng (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion on kWh was mostly good-natured, and it was resolved well with Eeng's stewardship. But you do not need to look far to find a dispute that lasted (literally) for years, was not resolved well, and was anything but natured. I am referring to a dispute that resulted in many editors avoiding this page (one referred to it as a "snakepit" and one stopped editing WP altogether), and is at least partly responsible for the present restrictions on this page. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

One helpful thing about the bit/byte dispute -- never-ending, deeply entrenched, seemingly irresolvable -- is that it provides a yardstick against which all the other never-ending, deeply entrenched, seemingly irresolvable MOS disputes can be measured. And in the darkest hours of any other controversy, editors can remind one another: "Well, at least this hasn't gone on as long as bits and bytes!", and take comfort in that.

More seriously, I began my career as a computer engineer more than 35 years ago, but I have no idea what the right answer is. In fact the reason this has gone on so long, I think, is that there is no right answer, and in fact there may not even be a good answer -- we (computer people, that is) may have backed into a corner from which there's no way out. For professional reasons I never edit computing-related articles, and that's lucky because I think this would be a constant source of anxiety and conflict.

How gratified I am by your "stewardship" comment. Perhaps you don't know it was recently suggested that I be topic-banned from MOS because (it was said) in the kWh discussion I was "disruptive", my comments weren't "helpful or proportionate to the importance of the topic" and showed "too much aggression", and that I "simply cannot relent on MOS-related matters" (WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive849#User:EEng).

EEng (talk)

But there is a way out - a very simple one. It has been endorsed by the International System of Quantities and is followed by scientists and industry alike. Wikipedia claims to follow reliable sources and the reliable sources follow IEC 80000-13, but Luddite mosnum editors prefer to resist progress.

If I had known about the proposed topic ban I would have opposed it. You are doing a good job. Consider toning down for newcomers not yet accustomed to your style, especially non-native English speakers who might not appreciate the wit.

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It's only a way out if consensus can form behind it, and I just don't see that happening. The enormous confusion in the real world seems destined to always be reflected as dispute within WP. I've been touting the fundamental principle of following the practice of sources, and mostly deflecting the question of what to do if sources are in serious conflict, as they are on bits and bytes. My personal answer is in such cases WP will need to make an arbitrary decision and memorialize it on MOS. OK, but which of the several alternatives will that arbitrary decision endorse? And now we're back to arguing again. In some cases that arguing can be eventually resolved, but in others it goes on seemingly forever if not longer.

I'd get involved if I thought I could help but (a) I don't think I can add usefully to the debate and (b) as mentioned, for professional reasons I need to stay away from computer-related topics. I hope you don't feel I'm abandoning you.

I wasn't worried for a second about the topic-ban -- everyone recognizes an angry hypocrite when they see one -- but thanks. Speaking of toning it down... Luddites?

EEng (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Units of measurement

My request is incredibly simple and basic. May we please have a table showing the style adopted by WP for basic units of measurement, e.g. centimeters, inches, pounds, ounces? Like the sort you see in diaries, on the back of calendars, etc. P123ct1 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you give an example of what you're looking for that's not here? EEng (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I am also confused by this request. The current guidance is if anything somewhat too extensive, and several special exemptions have had to be negotiated at the MOS level (some might say this is less than ideal). In what way is the existing guidance deficient? Archon 2488 (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)