Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 122

But others honestly see the relative advantages and disadvantages differently. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

All I have done is noted the recurrence of the same complaints on these pages, which have repeatedly dismissed by the same voices. There is no conspiracy.

We are not OUP, nor are we the NYT. Both of those have paid staffs, and neither permits anyone to edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I came to the MOS for guidance on whether something should be said to have "over 75,000" supporters or "more than 75,000" supporters. Which is appropriate for Wikipedia? Either I overlooked an applicable guideline or none yet exists. Thanks. Benccc (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I prefer writing "more than" because it somehow seems more quickly understandable, but I'd say "over" is fine. Just my opinion and I haven't checked MoS, I doubt there is anything in there.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I much prefer "more than", just as I prefer "the population is less than 300,000" to "the population is under 300,000". I would always change these when copy-editing, but "over" is not incorrect unless it's ambiguous, which is the case only sometimes ("more than" is never ambiguous, I think). Tony (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Either is appropriate, but more than is IMO superior and clearer in meaning.

WP Physics

} 00:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Another option is "in excess of". It is a matter of individual choice as to which to use, as grammatically, all are correct. None are ambiguous unless the context is unclear. _wjemather^bigissue 21:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There should be no guidance on this because competent choice depends on word flow, comparative sentence lengths etc. and is extremely hard to codify. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Guidance doesn't preclude individuality. Rather, guidance gives a starting point for those who aren't sure (as was the case for the original poster). (For the record, I prefer "more than" to "over".)

 HWV258 

00:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's not something I'd put into MOSNUM or MoS main; but it's something I'd change if copy-editing, mostly. It's a low-level issue. Tony (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to set up a

What? Tony (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM has a tag saying…

It has been suggested that the section Symbols for variables in formulas from the page Manual of Style (text formatting) be merged into this page or section. (Discuss)

The “Discuss” link connects to here but I see no discussion thread dedicated to the subject. So I’ll weigh in with my 2¢

• Oppose “variables and formulas” would seem to me to naturally be part of “numbers” (“dates and numbers”). This is where I’d look for the information. Greg L (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'd rather merge that section into
  WP:MOSMATH#Choice of type style, it seems more relevant there. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words
  . 23:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • With a nice pointer link in MOSNUM? I had never heard of MOSMATH. As long as there are convenient links in all the obvious places. Greg L (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

    There is a list of MoS subpages on the right side of the lead section of each one of them, but if you didn't notice it until now, maybe links should be added in more prominent places, too. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 09:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It currently reads: "Currency abbreviations that come before the number are [...] spaced if alphabetic (R 75)." For consistency with the section at the top about non-breaking spaces, why not recommend an nbsp explicitly here? So it could perhaps read: "Currency abbreviations that come before the number are [...] spaced, with a non-breaking space, if alphabetic (R 75)." People coming here to check the situation with currencies, because they've written "R75" and are wondering if it would look better spaced and if the MoS has anything to say on the matter, are unlikely to read the nbsp section too, so it seems sensible to spell this point out briefly. Likewise for any other sections of the MoS where nbsp recommendations come into play and are not mentioned there already. Thanks. 79.64.170.147 (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I think the same approach could apply to other symbols or abbreviations that are sometimes but not consistently associated with other punctuation such as dashes, hyphens, underlines, stops and commas. Users might look at the symbol or abbreviation in the Manual but not at the sometimes-associated punctuation. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I'd suggest explicitly linking to

WP:NBSP (or whatever it becomes, if the merge goes through), rather than only making the recommendation, though. That way, users might plausibly consider other options like {{nowrap}}. Also, should this be a full space or a thin space (& thinsp;)? TheFeds

07:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It makes a lot of sense. Tony (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone seen anything like

I've never seen it before. My guess is it's standard in Polish and whoever wrote this didn't suspect that there are some languages in which this is not done. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

O rly. Well there plenty of others too. The point is I'm wondering if the MOS should specifically deprecate this, and what would generally be best when the year is unknown (question marks, for example, are fairly popular too). — CharlotteWebb 23:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's standard in Polish and not in English, then it shouldn't be done here, since this is English Wikipedia. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No kidding. If I thought it was "standard" I wouldn't have brought it up. Once again what I'm asking is:

1. Whether the MOS should specifically deprecate using Roman numerals for centuries (or writing years in base-16 or any other unforeseeable quirk).
2. Whether I am correct to assume "(died 1760)" is the preferred form when the birth year isn't present.

— CharlotteWebb 01:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your raising this issue, Charlotte: thanks. It looks obstructive to English-speakers, who are quite unused to RNs used as such. I'd support a "should not be used without good reason" clause in the MOS. Tony (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

XVIIIth century would be a different question; it is English, but usually would be improved by conversion to eighteenth.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

(I've also never seen it.) As for the MOS, I hardly think it needs to be mentioned; if it's just something that Poles might occasionally write, then it will be rare and those who would do it will change after being told that it's not done in English, with or without MOS. As for the naming question, which this also is, wouldn't avoiding the years altogether, as we usually try to do, be the best solution? Stanisław Potocki (voivode of Poznań) would for instance be close to pl:Stanisław Potocki (wojewoda poznański) (in which article, incidentally, there's not a Roman numeral in sight; the birth year is "ur. 1698"). —JAO • T • C 21:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Deprecate means disapprove earnestly or avoid the future use of (in computer jargon), for those who don't know. Yours for clarity and with all the best wishes for Mother's Day in the USA,

talk

) 22:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In October last year, a user edited the MOSNUM section on Large Numbers to specify that only numbers greater than 10,000 should have comma separators, with an edit summary of "as per talk page". I can't find any discussion myself, though I may have overlooked it. Since then, this guideline page has been in conflict with the {{Convert}} template, which uses a comma separator for >=1,000 as seen in the following examples: 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lb), 1,000 metres (3,300 ft), 1,000 hectares (2,500 acres), etc.

Would it be possible to have either this page, or the template, edited so that this contradiction no longer exists? I don't have any concern as to which standard is adopted, although others may have stronger opinions. I've also posted at the talk page of the template to alert people to this. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it was me who originally proposed the wording which Physchim62 adopted. (I didn't follow the discussion for a couple of days, and I found that wording adopted on the page.) I personally prefer not to use commas for numbers less than 10,000, but it shouldn't be forbidden. On the other hand, four-digit "serial" numbers such as years and page numbers don't have commas (five-digit ones do, see

10,000 BC). I'm thinking of something like "In large numbers (i.e., in numbers greater than or equal to 10,000, and optionally for numbers between 1,000 and 10,000 which are not serial numbers such as years or page numbers) ..." but that's too wordy; can anyone find a more "slender" wording for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. di M. (talk • contribs

) 12:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would help to state something like, serial numbers or other numbers that are not normally broken up by a space, comma or period, should not be modified from their original form. Clearly whatever the guide is here, some numbers should not be formatted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I admit to being extremely confused as to why there should be any visual difference between four digit and five digit numbers...both have more than three digits, which I've always understood was the cutoff point for no commas. Shouldn't there be consistency in display...that is, if there are more than four digits in a number, commas should always be present every third digit? Of course, as Vegaswikian mentions, there may be times when any formatting is inappropriate, so that can be dealt with as well. Aside from that, I see the above edit introduced the allowance for spaces rather than commas. This might be worth discussing as well; personally, I think it should either be explicitly allowed, not allowed, or formatting specifically made dependent on rules such as

WP:ENGVAR to avoid it showing up where confusion may occur (people from the U.S. have no experience with gaps in the place of commas, for instance, and it may be vice-versa elsewhere). — Huntster (t • @ • c

) 18:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It says "in scientific articles". A person who couldn't understand the numbers in "Planck units" because of the gaps between the digits would likely be unable to make head or tail of the article at all, even if commas were used. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 10:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter what type of article it is used in, it should be consistently applied throughout. I don't understand what possible good reason there could be for having no indicator, comma or otherwise, in actual four digit numbers. This sets them off from dates, model numbers, etc, as CharlotteWebb mentions below. The indicator provides for less ambiguity, which is always a good thing. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 16:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The "in scientific articles" refers to the use of gaps instead of commas, not to the delimitation of numbers less than ten thousands. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 17:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the MOS already hints at this when it says:

Years are normally expressed in digits. Avoid inserting the words the year before the digits (1995, not the year 1995), unless the meaning would otherwise be unclear.

My conclusion is that a four digit number with no comma is generally assumed to be a year, if not a model number (e.g.

I would avoid the comma as superfluous; I would also use no comma in "There are 5280 feet in a mile." There must be constructions which would be ambiguous if the words the year were omitted, but the closest I can come is "The length of the foot varied across Europe in 1000." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Add The

template:RailGauge 1, 1435, 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) etc. etc. to this delemna. Peter Horn

01:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just added 121 and 122, the most recent (or current) archives to the Archive Box at the top of this page. But I'm not sure about the parallel Date archives which would (if appropriate) be D 14, D 15, and perhaps also D 16. Could someone who understands the archiving process better make the necessary adjustments? Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that those here who say the current Dynamic Dates syntax is "too complex" or "too complicated" meant the square brackets. Is it reasonable to assume that syntax such as {{#formatdate:December 3, 2009}} would be considered by those here to be even "more complicated" than [[December 3]], [[2009]]? I preferred using square brackets because it seemed simple and easier for a new editor to learn than some template-style invocation, and also because it avoided the tens of thousands of edits that would need to be made to change articles from the old style date format system to any new system. But my core question remains: would #formatdate be considered more complicated, as complicated or less complicated than the current square brackets system? —Locke Cole • t • c 11:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

{{#formatdate:December 3, 2009}} is eight characters more than [[December 3]], [[2009]]. On the other hand, if that parser function were just called "d", {{#d:December 3, 2009}} would be one character less than [[December 3]], [[2009]].

Anyway, since 59% of those editors who care about this (enough to be bothered to add a non-"Neutral" vote to the last RFC) oppose autoformatting in principle, I can't see the point of discussing which syntax is more or less "complicated". --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 12:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's one other reason to retain the linking syntax: if we made a Preference for turning links on or off, it would make far more sense to use the link syntax than something else. As for character usage, is that the final decider of "complexity" for those here? I preferred the linking syntax because it is already used for other non-link activities (categories, images). If moving to something like {{#d:Month Day, Year}} resolves that aspect of the dispute, I'd be fine with it, but obviously more input is needed.

As for this discussion, it started because of some comments made at the Proposed Decision for the arbitration case. As an aside, 59% is not (and should never be) considered consensus, not when such a large minority opposes. We don't vote here, and disputes are not resolved from a straight reading of a poll (unless it's nearly unanimous). And for what it's worth, the RFC prior to that indicated a majority support for "some form" of auto formatting (Dynamic Dates), so it's clear to me the community can go either way on this. That, to me, is as "no consensus" as it gets. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Um ... I don't think so. Where's the link to this claim of majority consensus for some form of DA? I can recall only RFCs that said no thanks very much. I can't believe you're still banging on about this, as though there were a problem to solve in the first place. <sigh> Tony (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Tony you know well enough where it is. But

here, again is the link. Please note that I started this discussion because it seemed at least one participant at the Proposed Decision welcomed discussion aimed at finding a real consensus on this. I note again that you're back at it with your usual antics already, feigning ignorance of prior discussions that you were involved with... *sigh* —Locke Cole • t • c

12:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"[S]uch a large minority oppose[d]" in that RfC, too (if it was actually a minority—I won't bother to count, but it's approximately two screenfuls of supports and two of oppositions). BTW, per

WP:CCC only the most recent one is relevant. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words

. 12:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And per

WP:CON such a large amount of support in the most recent RFC cannot simply be ignored. Besides, another reason for this discussion is that many of those who opposed Dynamic Dates may have done so because of the syntax. If the syntax issue were resolved (via compromise here) then perhaps there would be more support for it. Polls do not end discussions. —Locke Cole • t • c

13:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the #formatdate function can be called from a template, so say if it were {{

d}}, it would appear as {{d|May 2, 2009}}, thus reducing the number of characters by 3 compared to bracket DA. --MASEM (t

) 12:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So that's still seven more characters than just leaving it alone. Tony (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And here comes the "my way or the highway" response. Thank you for at least being formulaic in all this. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So it's strictly complicated by how many characters it is? I'm honestly interested, because I always thought the people saying it was complicated were saying that because of the the supposed learning curve of knowing to write dates in brackets (and so it logically follows, to me anyways, they would have an even harder time finding out about something like {{d|date}} or {{#formatdate:date}}). —Locke Cole • t • c 12:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The real problem is the imposition (without consensus) of an (unworkable) layer—on top of simplicity. The real point is that "[[December, 3]] [[2009]]" will always be more complex than "December, 3 2009". The atrocious square bracket formatting was introduced without community consensus and should be consigned to the dustbin as soon as possible. As an aside to the community, please don't be fooled by the seemingly simple reduction of "{{#d:December 3, 2009}}—the point being that as soon as that syntactical door is opened, a plethora of syntax-finesses will expand the complexity, whilst providing nebulous functional "improvements". We all saw many such suggestions during the debate.

 HWV258 

21:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

False; the community interested in such things was smaller in 2003, but autoformatting was a consensus compromise (one editor standing out); whether it was the best compromise is another question - and my answer is that it wasn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the RfC that provided the wider WP editing community an opportunity to find consensus for the issue in 2003? I (and I'm sure many others) would like to find out why a majority of support for the atrocious square bracket system disappeared in the intervening years.

 HWV258 

22:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Back then there wasn't such a large community that an RFC would have been totally necessary... as for why support has disappeared, probably because people think if they agree with you and your lot that maybe they'll stop hearing the same cries of "sea of blue" and "it's broken". —Locke Cole • t • c 22:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"...as for why support has disappeared..."—gracious of you to acknowledge this—thanks. Needless to say, I disagree with you over why "support" has disappeared (see the multitude of reasons given in the previous months; not to mention the "sea" of voting comments in the various RfCs).

 HWV258 

22:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Lovely, give an inch, take a mile. You know what I meant; the fact remains, there is still a large amount of support for Dynamic Dates, enough that I think it's safe to call it "no consensus". This leaves us in the position of needing to find something the community will find more palatable, and I think that's fixing the problems with the system and resolving the issues of linking and formatting being joined. Will you help in finding a way forward that will bring the community together, instead of being divisive? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"Divisive"? How ridiculous, but I guess if you tell yourself such things often enough then you must eventually start to believe them. (To drag it away from your customary personalisation of the debate,) you continue to miss the point that is obvious to everyone else—namely that there is trivial support for the current system of auto-formatting. You persist in mixing-up "current system" with "a system". The current system should never have been implemented, and should now be dismantled in order to provide a "clean sheet". If, as you believe, some sort of system of auto-formatting/linking is needed then feel free to work as hard as you like in order to specify that—I'm not stopping you. Perhaps you could spend some time in completing the grid that I started (

 HWV258 

23:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I take it then that you refuse to try and compromise on this, and instead insist on having it your way over the cries of others? Please answer, will you participate in good faith on reaching a workable compromise, or do you intend to join Tony in trying to force your way? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Not up to me—the community has spoken. For the record, I have done more than my share in the attempt to reach a compromise (see my post

 HWV258 

22:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Care to point me to the community consensus for dismantling Dynamic Dates? I've looked at all the RFCs and I don't see it. I see the community voicing concerns with the current system, as-is, but many of those concerns can be easily resolved. As to being tied to linking, that too can be resolved. So I ask again, will you participate in an effort to reach a compromise on Dynamic Dates, or is it your intent to follow Tony1's lead and cry foul at any attempt to reach something that really is consensus? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"...but many of those concerns can be easily resolved"—shakes head in wonder. If there is one thing that has been clearly demonstrated over the previous six months is that there is no magic or easy solution for fixing the current system of date linking/auto-formatting. If you feel it is so easy, please specify exactly how it should work so that the community can get a clear idea of what you (and others?) have in mind. Your other points have been covered many times and are not worth wasting further wiki-ink in replying.

 HWV258 

23:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall you offering to fix the problems inherent in Dynamic Dates. In fact, once the RfC started, you and CKatz appeared to head off into general principles in the RfC rather than specific fixes, and later embracing Werdna's {{#formatnum}}. I'm still not seeing the answer and the general support you said was there. Anyway, the conversation has now moved on - nobody is talking about switching off Dynamic Dates anymore, so why can we not move on too? Ohconfucius (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think HWV would be keen to help if he thought there was a problem to fix. I appreciate (even admire) your dedication, and am regarding it as in good faith; but I don't think there's the support you want. You are upset—and apparently angry with me in particular. I'm sorry that this is the case. You have a lot of talent, Locke Cole, and I think we'd all be delighted if you steered it towards other ways of improving the encyclopedia. Why won't you let us benefit from your talent? Tony (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that linking the day of the year and the year in full dates was already customary before autoformatting was first introduced (for some reason which is beyond me), and it's still customary in many other Wikipedias (e.g. the Italian one) where autoformatting was never enabled (as there is only one date format in common use in Italian, and in most languages other than English). See e.g. /vote: a vote about which format to use, with no mention of unlinked dates, and only one option supporting autoformatting. For examples of its use, see [14], [15], [16], etc. They just picked a syntax which happened to be already in use around dates. I think the first proposal of autoformatting was in /Archive 1#Date markup. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 11:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I do have to point out once again that one of the compelling reasons advanced for immediate automated delinking of all dates was that it was just too damn easy for other editors to adopt the same format they already saw in articles, and thus date-linking was bound to persist. I can't square this with any suggestions that the square-bracket method was in any way complicated. It was just plain simple, and the suggested use of a leading colon in the link to force blueing was also the same (though perhaps exactly converse) to using a leading colon to explicitly insert a [[Category:category link]] rather than a category itself. The rest of the discussion was down to viewpoints and jigging up the software. Franamax (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• One thing that is clear is that the community thinks it should be a (very) rare date that is linked in regular editorial content. So let’s assume that for the purposes of this discussion, linking is wholly separated from autoformatting. Let’s examine then, a fundamental issue about autoformatting: it is intended to give special benefits (a custom date format) for a very, very select group of individuals:

1. They are registered editors…
2. who have logged in and stayed logged-in for the last re-logged in every 30 days ,
3. who have set their date preferences to something other than “No preference”.

In the mean time, everyone else, particularly I.P. users, who are probably—literally—99.99% of our readership, just get a plain-text, default format. The community

Masem’s, Greg’s, and Ryan’s), and integrating all their teachings makes it clear that there is insufficient community support to warrant wasting one’s time by continually pitching these ideas.

I imagine the parties who have been, uhmm… *promoting* the idea of autoformatting might well be enjoined by ArbCom for one whole year from continuing to persist at this. Were I such an advocate, I’d be hanging really low right now. Greg L (talk

) 02:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't get the "who have logged in and stayed logged-in for the last 30 days" (why? don't you get preferences as soon as you create an account?); for the rest you're correct. "Masem’s" above links to the wrong place, but I won't bother to search for where that RfC is actually archived. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 09:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• When you log in, you can check a check-box that is labeled with “Remember me (up to 30 days)”. Doesn’t that mean that we all have to re-register? Doesn’t that mean that inactive editors seldom notice that their username no longer appears at top (and wouldn’t even care)? That’s the way I’ve always figured it. Nevertheless, my wording was misleading. I’ve revised it to better reflect what I meant. Greg L (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Greg please stop citing your RFC. Barely anyone participated in it (and with good reason), it certainly doesn't represent the view of the wider community. You're also getting ahead of yourself: as you can see from the section title, this section is attempting (and so far failing) to discuss the issues with the syntax that were raised. One step at a time, yes? It should be clear from my prior comments that I support attempting to resolve the issues you have with anonymous/IP users being unable to benefit from the auto formatting system, so let's just clear this one small hurdle first, then continue trying to parse out the other issues. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've also been a vocal opponent of autoformatting, mostly because of the added complexity it adds for new users. Most new users don't understand that they have to put special syntax around dates. They usually figure out pretty quickly that you need special syntax to create wikilinks. In my opinion, telling those users that yes, you use the same double brackets around dates, but they don't make links, they do something else, is going to be highly confusing. Something like formatdate makes it much more clear what the purpose of the syntax is (that is good!), but it is yet another piece of syntax that we are requiring users to learn (that is bad!), and (the other half of my objection) only to provide a limited advantage to a very, very small population (why?). For the vast majority of readers, and likely editors, that syntax, whatever it may be, is useless. Even if we make the default be the same for everyone, most people (judging by the % of users with preferences set) don't care at all. In my opinion, then, any special syntax for date autoformatting is making things overly and unnecessarily complex. Karanacs (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn’t have said it better Karanacs. Moreover, integrating all the teachings of the four RfCs makes it clear that yours is a common sentiment of the Wikipedian community. Greg L (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason for using the brackets is that, it was my hope, we could provide a preference for linking dates (choices being "always", "sometimes" (default) and "never"), which would address the concerns of those of us who actually like date links. In that regard, using square brackets makes sense because the dates may be linked and auto formatted (or any combination of one or the other). The reason for trying this is that it's clear we don't have support to entirely ditch auto formatting (something like 57% opposed in the last RFC, to 43% supporting), but perhaps some compromise system where we address as many of the concerns as we reasonably can and resolve as many of the connected issues as we can will find a consensus (again, a compromise; nobody gets their way exactly as they want it, but we all get a better encyclopedia for our trouble). —Locke Cole • t • c 11:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just why you'd bother perplexes me. Not worried about color/our? Tony (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

And so it goes, as usual

Rather than a useful discussion where opinions are respected and a compromise is considered, we have the usual suspects appearing, claiming nothing here need to be done, and carrying on as if things will go their way. This is not how Wikipedia should work, ever. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if some of the more difficult parts of this page were simplified. What, for example, is a significand? And why should we care? Yours very sincerely,

The mantissa (see the link on significand, or logarithm: the 1.2345 in 1.2345 * 10⁹. What would you call it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The 1.2345 is the signifcand, 10⁹ (or simply 9) is the exponent, assuming of course common logs (i.e. log₁₀) where 10 is the base, and not Naperian logarithms or binary logarithms or whatever. I think the whole problem here is to remember who are we writing for? I think a technical article can handle saying it's 100 parsecs or whatever, wheras a more general argument needs to spell it out a bit more.

I still have my slide rule and can do multiplication and division quicker on that than on a n electronic calculator. You can do lots of clever tricks on them. SimonTrew (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember, this is not requiring that we use the word significand; it is stating a technical limitation on the template (which is unlikely to matter, but should be documented somewhere). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"The mantissa (see the link on significand, or logarithm: the 1.2345 in 1.2345 * 109. What would you call it?" Well, I would call it jargon that is not comprehensible to most readers of this page. Sincerely, still your friend,

• Why the concern over “significand”? It doesn’t matter. When I went to school, I learned it as the “mantissa”. But when I first started working on the {val} template and had to write about it here and document it, I found that the mathematical community apparently got more specific over the last few decades (like no longer calling it “atomic weight” but “atomic mass” instead) and now call it “significand.” In fact, mantissa now just goes to a disambiguation page, so I’m not about to call it that. I don’t even understand the basis of your objection; the first use of the term on WP:MOSNUM is linked so it’s easy enough to learn about this if one doesn’t recognize the term. What’s good enough for our readers ought to be good enough for us. This is, after all, an encyclopedia; we’re all here to learn. Greg L (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• If you don't know what a significand is, chances are you don't need to know what it is. The term is linked for those who don't know what it means. Never heard the term mantissa before, but then again my native tongue is French, so that may be why.
  WP Physics
  } 03:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah we used to call it mantissa when I was growing up. I agree it doesn't matter, except perhaps that the standard texbook formula for quadratic equations, the "m" stands for mantissa (I forget where this was raised but someone asked it not so long ago, why choose "m"). It's the same with the names of axes I guess, they were the abscissa and I forget the other now we just call them x and y. (and z.... etc).

I am not sure being Francophone would have much to do with it, probably as Greg says just what field you're in. The symbols example for Boolean operators vary between computing, electronics, and pure maths, rather unnecessarily really but we're kinda stuck with it.

I think the point we're all pretty much agreeing on here is trying to think "who is our reader?" Of course anyone can read any article but if they come to this page what are they likely to be looking for and how can we help them? At the risk of going overlinking, I think it's best kept because someone looking up this article is probably not as such interested in what a significand (or mantissa or exponent) is, they are editing an article and want to know the preferred way to express it. They are, I would hazard, editors of articles rather than general readers. As such they just want to see how to format a number, not to learn what a significand is-- if they wanted that they could have typed "significand" into their search box.

That's rather a muddled argument. SimonTrew (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see the point I was aiming for. That is: when you're editing an article the more help you can get the better, and really you're concentrating on the article not these niceties (depending on the state of the article of course). So, the more links etc the meta-articles like MOS and stuff can give, the better, you want to be able to find what you're looking for very quickly. Providing it doesn't seem like

Blackpool illuminations

I'd thus say link, link link. One of the hardest things I find as a fairly regular editor is simply to find out how to do something: there is kinda a bias that you can only find out how to do it if you already know how to do it.

This example in itself is of course trivial. templates are the worst. If you don't know they exist it's pretty much a game of roulette to try to find one; and even if you do they may have entirely inadequate documentation. The convert template, as a counter-example, is by nature a but tricky to use, but it's usable partly because fairly well (though not perfectly) documented. SimonTrew (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If not, I plan on creating one. Please check out this discussion at the template talk page.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   05:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

After considerable discussion, the MOS wording was changed to to the version that I have copyedited into MOSNUM. For information on the discussion go to [17] Michael Glass (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added in this bullet point: Common sense should be used to avoid possible offence (e.g., In Jewish, Islamic or Buddhist articles). Refer to Common Era for information on the usage. (Taken verbatim from wording proposed by Michael Glass on Talk page referenced above.) It is necessary to have this in order to avoid an atrocious situation such as on the German Wikipedia, where policy is to use the † symbol for date of death, even in articles on Jewish subjects.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Good move. Michael Glass (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody please put a link to the Section in question? Thank you. Sincerely,

talk

) 00:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Here you go.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense.

talk

) 00:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this addition because it is badly written (we do not have "Jewish" articles), and it is not our goal to avoid giving offence (see

Nonsense. The point of my insertion was to prevent edit wars, not invite them - which is exactly what Sandstein's revert accomplishes. The remark about "Jewish articles" is incomprehensible unless intended as a straw man argument of the lowest order (no one here said anything about "Jewish articles"). (Side note: admin Sandstein improperly removed rollback rights from me a short while ago, we will see if this grows into a pattern of harrassment on his part.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What I meant by that remark is that we have articles about Jewish subjects but not "Jewish articles" (as in your proposed addition); our articles are not human beings and have no religion or ethnicity.  Sandstein  19:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I completely back up Sandstein in this matter. Wikipedia is not censored and does not give guidelines to avoiding offense. The only reason both BC and BCE are acceptable is because they're both widely notable. Would you also suggest Wikipedia use the

^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`}

05:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

See my modified proposal here, together with my acknowledgement that life is too short to wage a campaign against the obstreperous obstructionists.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

MoS is written in US English. Is it "offense"? Tony (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

They are not units of measurement. That is

I don't object to changing the phrase "units of measurement" to "units of measure". However, no one is in charge of the English language, and if you go around with the attitude that some commonly used words or phrases are "wrong, just wrong" expect to get reverted a lot. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My built-in Apple dictionary states "measurement |ˈme zh ərmənt| noun the action of measuring something : accurate measurement is essential | a telescope with which precise measurements can be made. • the size, length, or amount of something, as established by measuring : his inseam measurement. • a unit or system of measuring : a hand is a measurement used for measuring horses."

or see the definition at Measurement: Measurement is the process of assigning a number to an attribute (or phenomenon) according to a rule or set of rules. The term can also be used to refer to the result obtained after performing the process.

Yours,

I expect most (if not all) dictionaries would tell you the same. Measurement can mean either the process or the result. Using either is certainly not "wrong", it is simply a matter of personal preference. _wjemather^bigissue 21:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• The term “units of measure” is the proper phrase. Greg L (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to come back on this, I don't go round editing things because I find them "wrong, just wrong". I was simply expressing my opinion on this talk page. Since WP:MOSNUM has to make standards, let's make them the simplest they can be.

I don't see how this differs from deciding about whether commas and spaces are used in numbers, how dates should go, and so forth. All style guides are going to differ, their aim is to find an internal consistency. My perhaps rather blunt statement was so settle on saying "unit of measure" not "unit of measurement".

The guys over on the convert template do great work. Some of us who use those templates find problems and they sort them out very quickly. I use that template as much as possible because it ensures consistency. That's what we're going for here isn't it? SimonTrew (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don’t understand what the exact issue is with templates or not. I don’t see how that affects the fact that “unit(s) of measure” is the commonly accepted, proper expression, not “unit(s) of measurement.” Greg L (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Because people who write the documentation for it have to know which phrase to use. SimonTrew (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot. Wikipedia has no documentation. SimonTrew (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The relevant article is titled

units of measure redirects to a disambiguation page, since that phrase covers more than just measurements. _wjemather^bigissue

05:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt unit of measure is a clear choice; the OED does not cite it, although they do cite units of measurement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The new

*I use the phrase "visual gaps" to indicate that when viewed with a browser, there appears to be a gap between certain digits, no matter whether there is an actual space character there or not. This avoids discussing which template is used to create the effect. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Short answer: yes. On Wikipedia, consistency within a given article is a valued attribute. As a general principle, numbers with more than four digits to the right of the decimal marker should be delimited to the right with narrow gaps. So for two reasons (consistency and ease-of-parsing), yes; all the numbers should be delimited in the article. Using the {{val}} template is best for a variety of reasons.

  Caveats: Sometimes numbers are expressed to high precision as a near-decorative effect to demonstrate how an irrational number (like pi) can be really long; there is no expectation that readers actually parse the value nor appreciate distinctions past, say, the fifth digit after the decimal point. Also, a not-too-uncommon failing Wikipedians fall victim to is to express numbers with greater precision than is truly necessary to convey the point, leading editors to not really care if it is easy for readers to parse and understand a number or not. So…

  On the assumptions that 1) the number is not decorative-to-impress, and 2) is expressed at a precision suitable for conveying germane information, it is therefore important for readers to be able to easily parse the value and it should be delimited—commas to the left of the decimal point, narrow gaps to the right. And, yes, that would include “large integers”—that doesn’t change the fact that there is (supposedly) important information to the right of the decimal point that requires parsing. Greg L (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that {{val|12345|06789}} is displayed as 12345.06789. This format is unique to Wikipedia; no other publication mixes two methods of delimiting a number in the same article, never mind the same number. Although MOSNUM implicitly accepts this format by mentioning the Val temlate, nowhere does it explicitly say this format is acceptable. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well in that case don't take it to 5 DPS or sig figs? Is that not simpler? I'm missing something here.

• Yeah, it seems you’ve made up your mind and are going to do what you wanna do, Jc3s5h. Nothing is going to change the fact that large numbers with four or five or more digits to the left of the decimal marker must be delimited with commas here on Wikipedia in our general-interest articles; that’s simply the way it’s done; we use the American system to the left of the decimal marker, not BIPM, not Swedish, 1, Swedish 2, or whatever. So if you think it somehow best serves the interests of our readers to have really, really long, non-broken stretches of digits to the right, it strikes me that you are going to do it your way. Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• My reading is that since the MOSNUM allows gap delimiters in appropriate types of articles, an article that takes advantage of this possibility should use gap delimiters on both the left and right of the decimal. The Val template should be modified accordingly. Since that is what every other publication that allows gap delimiters does, the MOSNUM should be read to follow customs that have some kind of precedent, rather than being read to require an unprecedented format. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• You’ve arrived late to the discussion. The {{val}} template was no accident. It was the product of lengthy (very lengthy) discussions both here on WT:MOSNUM and at WT:MOS. The template is locked for a reason. If you don’t like the mix of commas and thin gaps, and if you are in a scientific article, you can always use scientific notation, such as 5.7395739×10⁻¹⁷ m, which avoids the issue altogether. Greg L (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Greg L. I had made the assumption that val and convert had been very carefully considered. I believe the ISO standards do specify spaces in the decimal parts of numbers, though in the UK that is rarely actually used. The difficulty then becomes, write it to an international standard, or write it the way people actually use it? That's a very difficult one to answer and as Greg says has no doubt gone through much debate before.

The convert templates sometimes produce bizarre results, and they get fixed very quickly. Some people like me use them not because they are simple (they are a bit hard really) but because we know that then the article is future-proof against changes and it gives future editors, and translators into other languages, an idea of the actual measure being said. I struggles for example when translating from French when it says "about 10 kilometres from X or Y" do I put that in miles or leave in kilometres? That kind of thing, if not resolved by using a template, at least gives some future editor an idea of what was meant.

I had some troubles at Electric car with knowing what precision was actually implied when someone says "200 mph maximum speed", like exactly 200? About 200? It is that kind of thing where putting an exact figure from a reliable source, and then knocking it down to a sensible precision for the reader, is very valuable (pardon the pun).

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

SimonTrew wrote "I believe the ISO standards do specify spaces in the decimal parts of numbers...." That is not correct. Several international recommendations including the brochure published by the

BIPM require that only thin spaces be used to group digits, "neither dots nor commas are inserted in the spaces between groups of three." This applies both left and right of the decimal point. I infer this was intended as a way to avoid the problem that in some places, a period is used as a decimal point, while in other places a comma is so used. --Jc3s5h (talk

) 15:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• (←outdent). The BIPM also recommends that a space be placed between a number and the percent symbol; e.g., 75 % and not 75% (5.3.7 Stating values of dimensionless quantities, or quantities of dimension one). Notwithstanding that some editors think the sun rises and sets on standards organizations like the BIPM and the IEC, Wikipedia wisely eschews such advise (they are “recommendations”, not laws etched by God into stone) and we follow the practices that cause the least confusion with our readership. So, like Encyclopedia Britannica, we use commas. There are a number of workarounds to your “predicament”.. Greg L (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It would indeed be impossible (and probably undesireable)to get editors to follow every BIPM, IEC, and ISO practice, such as always using symbols for SI units rather than spelling them out. However, when the most popular English-speaking customs just aren't up to the job in certain articles, is it better to switch the whole article over to a less-common custom that gets the job done, or is it better to make up a format that no other publication uses? I'd go with the less-common format over the made-up format. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense and would seem to be

WP:COMMON. I think the main thing is to consider your readership. As Greg L implied, in articles for general purpose readership it would be absurd to use bizarre notations. In a very technical article it may be the most appropriate. Certainly to start writing in phonecian sexagesimal or something would be a bit absurd. SimonTrew (talk

) 17:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviations such as Feb are used only where space is extremely limited, such as in tables and infoboxes. Please add footnotes; I assumed this was obviously covered, but AWB programming seems to differ . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is only semiprotected so please make the edit yourself. (It's only the dates section which is fully protected.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the change. PMA proposed adding "footnotes", but did not propose dropping "extremely". In the past, a number of editors in this forum have reaffirmed that date formats in footnotes should be consistent with the existing guideline. Space in footnotes is not "extremely limited" or even "limited". Shortening an occasional footnote that takes 2 or 3 lines to 1 or 2 lines by abbreviating "March" to "Mar" does not greatly improve WP (it's no improvement at all IMO), but having different guidelines for date formats in footnotes is a detriment. If there is a rare case where the footnotes really require such abbreviating, and would improve the article, (and I can't begin to imagine what that might be), then just ignore the guideline and improve the article. There's no good in encouraging 6 formats ('6 Feb', '6 Feb.', '6 February', 'Feb 6', 'Feb. 6', 'February 6') where we currently get by fine with 2 formats. If this change stood, crews and/or bots would soon be going through all articles mashing the months. Chris the speller (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I just realized it would be even worse than that; 'September' would have 10 possible formats, since it is often abbreviated as either 'Sep' or "Sept'. Chris the speller (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine, we can put back extremely, if it matters to people. I took it out primarily because infoboxes aren't extremely limited to begin with.

• If this change stood, crews and/or bots would soon be going through all articles mashing the months. No, this is exactly what I am trying to avoid; if we permit all of Sep, Sept., and September in footnotes, there is no justification for any bots on the subject.
• Abbreviating months in footnotes has two minor, but real, advantages. It permits copying some citations in exactly the format preferred by the journal in question; it will sometimes permit a footnote to go on one line instead of two, making a list of footnotes shorter and easier to read. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the original language again. PMA is the only editor who asserts that space is "extremely limited" in footnotes. We do not owe allegiance to any journals in the matter of date formatting. Abbreviating a month may sometimes allow a short paragraph in the body of an article to remain on one line instead of flowing onto a second, but that's not a worthy goal either. We can't assume how others see the footnotes, since they use various browsers and settings. Chris the speller (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) New editors often learn by example. If they happen to examine articles that contain no full dates in the body of the article, but dates with abbreviated months in the footnotes, they might conclude they should abbreviate months everwhere. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems far fetched. How many articles mention no month in the text, have footnotes, and cite journal articles in them (the principal reason why anybody would want a month in a footnote). How many newbies will begin exactly in that small subset? how many of them will have so small a degree of fluency in English that they will not already know that "Journal of Irreproducible Results (Apr. 1984) pp.1345-2658" is a condensed form of English, not to be lightly adopted in article text.

It would make as much sense to ban pp. so that newbies won't write "the last four pp. of the novel" in plot summaries. But I fear I've violated

WP:BEANS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

18:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I can think of no reason whatsoever to abbreviate months in footnotes. There is no space limitation. Wrapping depends on browser settings more than anything. The formatting preferences of the cited journal are irrelevant. As Chris points out, should there ever be legitimate cause to abbreviate, then simply ignore the MOS guidelines. _wjemather^bigissue 18:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The longer the footnote, the more browsers it will wrap on. Saving four spaces by using "Dec." will therefore help some readers, and improve accuracy. (Again, I would not make "Dec." mandatory - whether there is any case for it depends on the journal, and the length of the footnote.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a MOS that didn't have to be ignored; is that beyond hope? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently. Pity, we could actually use one. But, clearly, Emerson was right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This manual says:

e.g., write 5° 24′ 21.12″ N for coordinates, 90° for an angle, but 18 °C for a temperature

Are there authoritative sources independent of Wikipedia that prescribe this usage? I'd have written 18° C. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

BIPM, NIST, all (or nearly all) scientific journals, if I recall correctly. I'd have to look them up to be sure, but I've never seen 18° C anywhere.

WP Physics

} 03:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've found this.

The numerical value always precedes the unit, and a space is always used to separate the unit from the number. Thus the value of the quantity is the product of the number and the unit, the space being regarded as a multiplication sign (just as a space between units implies multiplication). The only exceptions to this rule are for the unit symbols for degree, minute, and second for plane angle, °, ', and ", respectively, for which no space is left between the numerical value and the unit symbol.

This rule means that the symbol °C for the degree Celsius is preceded by a space when one expresses values of Celsius temperature t.

—BIPM

JIMp _talk·cont 08:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

But the reasons why the angle should be an exception (and also the superscript apostrophes for feet, inches, minutes, and seconds) would seem to apply to temperatures too: It's the same symbol, and it's a superscript, and it's not written out in letters but is instead a sort of punctuation mark.

If one says the temperature is 68 degrees, without specifying Celsius, Fahrenheit, etc., would you write 68 ° or 68°? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't write a thing until I know wheter they mean 68 °F or 68 °C. 68° is an angle. Whoever writes 68° (or 68 °) to mean either should sent to

WP Physics

} 00:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it doesn't seem that way to the BIPM. Like it or not 68 °C appears to be the standard convention. Is altering such conventions what Wikipedia should be doing? JIMp _talk·cont 08:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• I wish I would have noticed this thread sooner. According to the BIPM’s SI brochure: Subsection 5.3.3, Formatting the value of a quantity, a space is always used to separate the unit symbol from the numeric value. Notable exceptions are the unit symbols for degree, minute, and second for plane angle, °, ′, and ″ (e.g., a latitude of 47° 38′ 8.8″). One properly writes It is cool outside as it is 18 °C. It is also proper to write Turn right 90°. Greg L (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Canadian government style manual does not follow the BIPM lead in this case. Its recommendation is not to use any spaces, i.e. "18°C". I believe the reason is that the space is redundant since the meaning is clear whether it is used or not.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would offer the observation that using a space or a non-breaking space to convey meaning begs for errors, particularly in the context of line wrapping while editing the wikitext. Many editors have no clue what " & n b s p ; " stands for and some will happily delete it or replace it with a tap of the spacebar. This simple act shouldn't break the meaning of the article. Better to have {{convert|18|C|F}} generate 18 °C (64 °F) and let the template carry the freight.LeadSongDog come howl 18:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I know Associated Press style is different than Wikipedia style, but what is the rule for ages and numbers? A.P. says always a numeral figure, but I can't seem to find it on this page. Fdssdf (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The section Numbers as figures and words. Our basic rule is spelling out numbers less than ten, but other ages less than 100 come in a grey area. It may be that ages are another exception, of which we already have a dozen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the sections which could be drastically simplified, with a combination of Follow the sources, and a rule of thumb to use figures for large or precise numbers. (Largeness is subject dependent: 13 battleships is a large number, thirteen houses is not.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If you own thirteen houses it is. JIMp _talk·cont 13:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS (not MOSNUM) says "Mathematical quantities, measurements, stock prices, etc., are normally stated in figures." I don't think it's obvious whether that "etc." includes ages, so I guess you could write either 9 years or nine years and they would both be fine. (But avoid writing "John was 17 years old and James was nine", the difference in format makes it take at least half a second longer to compare ages without any good reason—an arbitrary boundary at 10 is no good reason IMO.) --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 19:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I wrote it; it doesn't. Stock prices and so forth are quasi-continuous quantities; ages are normally integers. If this section is not simplified, the etc, should be recast; but I am leaving this page, for reasons explained at

WT:MOS#What's wrong with MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

15:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure PMA didn't literally mean that "ages are normally integers". Perhaps "personal ages are normally stated as integers"? It certainly isn't appropriate for geological or cosmological ages. In any case personal age is too often used in a perishable context that requires an "as of 2009" clause. In such cases it is usually better given as a birth year or birth date to avoid growing stale. LeadSongDog come howl 16:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Another alternative is a template which will do the subtraction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Are personal ages normally stated as integers? Small children tend to be very particular to tell you they are six and a half, and so on. SimonTrew (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

But we have very few articles about small children; even John Stuart Mill says he learned Greek "at the age of three", not a fractional value. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Mozart wrote his first piece "at the age of three years" or whatever. I just didn't want to exclude it unnecessarily. SimonTrew (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How long is the dates section going to stay protected? I say unprotect and block whoever tries to force something through with editwarring. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make clear somewhere in the guideline that British date formatting can be either April 20 or 20 April. When writing a date using only numbers, Brits always write the day first (20/04/2009), but when using the word for a month, April 20 is acceptable, as is 20 April.

The reason I'd like to clarify this is that I often see British editors arrive to change from April 20 to 20 April, often with edit summaries that imply they think the MoS requires it. It's usually done inconsistently; and I've seen editors change image names that contain dates (by mistake when they're changing other things), so that the images are no longer visible. Cleaning up after it can be time-consuming. Even though the MoS makes clear that people shouldn't be imposing style changes on stable articles, this misunderstanding about dates seems very persistent.

Does anyone mind if I clarify it to emphasize that either format is acceptable — when the word for the month is used, and not just numbers — whether in a British-related article or anywhere else? I'm posting below a sample of British and Irish newspapers that use the month/day format on their front pages, and in their articles.

England:

• The Times [18]
• The Sunday Times [19]

• Daily Mail [20]
• Mail on Sunday [21]

Scotland:

• The Herald [22]
• Sunday Herald [23]

Wales:

• Swansea Evening Post [24]
• Western Telegraph [25]

Northern Ireland:

• Ulster Herald [26]

Republic of Ireland:

• The Irish Times [27]
• The Irish Independent [28]

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

i have the impression that quite a lot of people would mind the change you're proposing; i think people make the kind of edits you're talking about because they prefer DMY format, not just "because the MOS says so". the fact that some UK publications use the MDY format is not universally persuasive: -ize is widely used in UK publications too, but lots of Wikipedia editors still routinely change it to -ise in articles in UK English.

Sssoul (talk

) 17:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

While I understand this argument and it is internally consistent, I would be loath to see the long-standing consensus that US articles (other than military ones) use MMM-DD-YYYY, UK/Commonwealth ones use DD-MMM-YYYY, and articles on both or on neither use whatever the first major contributor used. While this is not a perfect situation, it has worked for a long time and produces articles which are at least consistent. A bit like

WP:ENGVAR, it is a situation where something most people accept is imperfect is nonetheless a hard-won compromise that everyone can just about work with. Of course, if there is a strong consensus that we should change this style guide then I will accept it. --John (talk

) 17:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There is considerable evidence that Anzac usage is more artificially consistent than the UK, although in the opposite direction from the schoolroom consistency of American - partly as a reaction to American influence. In addition, April 20 was a standard British usage as recently as the Second World War.

I would support text saying that either variety is acceptable, if we included

WP:ENGVAR's cautions against edit-warring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

17:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson, here is a revision from December 2007 with the language we are discussing in place as of 15 months ago. In Wiki-time, that is a very long time ago, and certainly more than "a few months". Slim, don't spoil your decent argument by inflating the numbers; the Sunday Herald and the Herald are sister papers, as are The Times and The Sunday Times, and also the Mail and the Mail on Sunday. Each pair undoubtedly uses the same style guide. Each therefore only counts as one example. Although I am not disputing this aspect of your argument, exaggerating like this doesn't strengthen it. --John (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

i agree that it undermines the argument to list those pairs of "sister papers" as if they were separate entities.

Sssoul (talk

) 19:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• The present wording derives from the archives marked D6 through D9 at the top of the page - last August and September. In the process, we observed that newspaper usage for all English speaking countries is inconsistent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies if it looked like exaggeration; I just listed them as I came across them. I called up a list of newspapers in the different countries, and there did seem to be quite a few that used April 20, and not 20 April, many more than I've mentioned here. The Encyclopaedia Britannica also uses the April 20 format e.g. its article on Tony Blair says: "Tony Blair, prime minister of United Kingdom ... born May 6, 1953, Edinburgh, Scot."

The important point is that both formats are acceptable in the UK and Ireland, so there's no reason for us to ask editors to prefer one over the other. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Other than a long-standing consensus. Let's turn this around; given that either format is intelligible to anyone, anywhere, what advantages would accrue to us by changing the MoS guidance? All newspapers have a style guide to ensure consistency within and between articles. Why would we not have? --John (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it's being done on the grounds that 20 April is British, and therefore must be used in Britain-related articles. But it's not British. April 20 is British too. What forcing the 20 April format on people has done is lead to inconsistency within the encyclopedia in general (because most articles do use April 20 format), and inconsistency within articles, as people arrive to change some, but invariably not all, date formats, thinking the MoS requires it. If consistency across the project matters, we should remove the "20 April is British" advice, not least because it's factually incorrect.

John, you wrote above that the current advice is the result of a hard-won compromise. What were the issues that this was a compromise for, and do you remember roughly where/when that discussion took place? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A few problems in all the above:

• The Daily Mail example is not entirely correct - update dates in the form "21st April 2009" are seen in articles such as this (the day ordinal notwithstanding).
• Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. has been American since the early 20th Century; it is absurd to suggest this is relevant for UK standards.
• Why the excessive focus on newspapers, and particularly their websites, which may be subject to inconsistent software settings and not necessarily what appears in print? Besides,
  WP:NOTNEWS
  .
• Government consistently shows international/dmy date formats (apart from slight differences as day ordinals); academic usage also seems overwhelmingly international/dmy. Those are more compelling sources for style guidance than newspapers.
• "... most articles do use April 20 format"? Wonder how fast it took to go through all 6,818,200 articles to confirm this? Even if so, factors such as ignorance of the MoS or systemic bias may come into play here.

Dl2000 (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Testing Slim Virgin's claim is not difficult. As I write, 9648 articles use the string "April 20"; the comparable figure for "20 April" is 5763. This is about what one would expect, given that most native speakers of English are from countries where "April 20" is customary usage or those where custom is divided. It may be that other dates would give different results; but even "November 5"/"5 November" is 9465/5165.
• When MOS disagrees with what WP actually does, ignorance of MOS is one possible explanation; but MOS' ignorance of Wikipedia is far more likely - and MOS' ignorance of the English language is always possible. Our guidelines are supposed to describe what editors in general do agree on; not what some small coterie thinks they ought to agree on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well why didn’t you say so earlier, PMA? I shouldn’t look to MOS for guidance since it embodies the collective wisdom of a “small coterie” that has fouled it all up. Apparently, you posses all the writing wisdom and uniquely know what is best for Wikipedia. From hereon, I’ll skip the silly step of reading MOS and just ask you what is best. Greg L (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You could do worse; but you would do better still to consider what Wikipedians at large actually agree on, and limit this waste of electrons to that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Formatting inconsistencies across WP are rife: there are articles which have a mix of dmy, mdy, ISO, and other variants. I hope to see a universal date format across the whole of WP which does not rely on autoformatting. The reason we got into autoformatting (and the dates case currently before Arbcom) is that we couldn't agree on a default style. I also believe that '5 November 2008', with one awkward comma less, is more elegant than 'November 5, 2008', but would be prepared to align to mdy dates if uniformity could be achieved. However, each time there is a discussion, it almost invariably goes back to "
  WP:ENGVAR works well enough." Well, I disagree - it's a total shambles. We have some US articles using international (dmy) style dates and UK/Oz articles which use mdy style dates/

  For WP not to have adopted a single format (or language variant) is seriously unprofessional. Admittedly, WP is not "professional" in the true sense, but that should not stop us taking a serious look at our style guide. It is important to note, as SV points out, that each publication has only one definitive style of dates and one language variant. Being the most widely visited information site on the Internet, WP is one of the few sites where there is a notable absence of prevailing style policy. I don't think the [decentralisation] suggestion is the right way to go. Ohconfucius (talk

  ) 04:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if this were not true, making the bog of unsourced, semi-literate, tendentiousness that causes Wikipedia to be an unreliable source "professional" by tidying links and -our endings would be a joke, if it were not consumer fraud. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• "bog of unsourced, semi-literate, tendentiousness...". Yep, just like you said, WP is a joke. A little bit of order no doubt offends the anarchist in you... What's wrong with trying to make it a little less of one? Ohconfucius (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I believe my position to be little different from Brion Vibber, so I would appreciate it if I was not quoted out of context in an unrelated discussion. Thank you for your attention. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The best written English is almost always a reflection of the best spoken English (which is why Shakespeare, the 1611 Authorised/King James Version of the Bible, and the Book of Common Prayer, all written to be to be spoken aloud, are still such powerful influences—even among non-Christians and dramaphobes—four hundred years after they were written, despite major changes in vocabulary and sentence structure.) And most of us don't say "April twenty" or "Twenty April"; we say "April twentieth" and "the twentieth of April", partly because "Twenty" is a cardinal number and "twentieth" is an ordinal (modifying the unspoken "day of"). And in ordinary speech, most of us (I think) use both forms, "April twentieth" and "the twentieth of April", almost every week, if not every day or every hour. At times, we can even use both forms in the same sentence. If the technical reasons related to date-autoformatting, and the managing-editor's concern for saving space, no longer apply, then there's no reason for Wikipedia to disallow April 20th and 20th April, either, especially when they add to the clarity, flow, or style of a sentence or paragraph. ("Lincoln was shot on the 14th of April, 1865, and died on the 15th.") A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds... (Ralph Waldo Emerson) —— Shakescene (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A reasonable argument for more flexibility; is there dispute - other than on the grounds above that there must be only one standard, as in

WP:ENGVAR should argue for that elsewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

14:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

{|class="wikitable sortable"
||Number
||Date
|-
||1
||4 Jan 2009
|-
||2
||30 Jan 2009
|}

{|class="wikitable sortable"
||Number
||Date
|-
||1
||{{Hs|2009-01-04}}4 Jan 2009
|-
||2
||{{Hs|2009-01-30}}30 Jan 2009
|}

Can you at least wait until the bodies have started to cool from the

WP:OVERLINKing of dates is not desirable, however consensus has not been found on when dates should be delinked. While ArbComm may ultimately drop that from the proposed decision, or go with alternate text, it's likely that that will be the starting point of the next round of consensus-seeking. Personally, I don't see birth/death day links as improving the encyclopedia at this time. Studerby (talk

) 01:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree.

 HWV258 

01:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See this

 HWV258 

01:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, you make some good points. Here are my responses:

• Labeling the series of semi- and fully automated edits to delink dates "semi-vandalism" is a not a good faith comment. Can you rephrase?
• I think that if we tried to spell out every instance of when dates should or should not be linked, we'd have editors on both sides of the debate trying to look for loopholes, and a lot of unnecessary discussions would crop up. Of course, my proposal still stands, but the community seems to favor the broader guidelines. I do not support the linking of birth and death dates, but that's not the point I'm making here.
• I don't mind strengthing the language that supports linking chronological items in holiday and date articles.
• I do think that the year itself should be linked. Hidden links in those articles are OK, I guess. I'm not sure about linking month-day fragments. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• The community appeared to be a lot less favourable to linking md/dm than the year in the Ryan RfC, but that still does not translate into wanting to link years in general, or even years of birth or death. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• The semi-vandalism I'm talking about is hypothetical; I'm not suggesting that any of the existing parties in the RfCs or RfAr would engage in such a procedure, but I'm trying to reduce the ability to game the system to remove any links which are appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Arthur, can you explicate here exactly what the insertions of potential and should add? It seems to be a vague epithet, especially to an editor who comes upon it without the background. Tony (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• • (Thanks to whoever boxed the proposal.) What I'm trying to do here (pending a formal agreement as to whether option #1, as written, really has consensus) is: Assuming that 1999 were relevant to a not-obviously-chronological article, what is to prevent a vandal from deleting the relevant material from 1999, and a conscientious editor then removing the link to 1999, per this MOS. Even if the material is restored to 1999, the link will probably be gone indefinitely. Perhaps we should refer to a stable version of the year or month-day page? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, not another one of these. Can't you even wait until ARBCOM is done? This is pretty damned near trolling at this point. This also applies to the user below.

Nonsense. Arbcom is explicitly not ruling on content of the MOS, and this is a content question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

arthur my personal opinion is that date linking generally is useless but births and deaths would be very useful to link for on this day kinda pages. Yeah, there is no consensus. I am just adding my opinion here. SimonTrew (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Links should be used to help readers understand the subject they're reading about, not so that readers can access a trivia (we have the search button and the "On this day" section on the Main Page for that). Indeed, if more year articles looked like

date linking RfC, many of the opposers to date links were opposed just because of their sole use as an "on this day" article. Dabomb87 (talk

) 00:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Michael Bloomberg has been Mayor of New York City since 2001.
2. Michael Bloomberg has been Mayor of New York City since 2002.
3. Rudolph Giuliani has not been Mayor of New York City
   since 2001.
4. Bill Clinton has not been President of the United States since 2001.
5. Since 1999, the Christian world has been in its
   third millennium
   .
6. Since 2000, the Christian world has been in its
   third millennium
   .
7. Since 2001, the Christian world has been in its
   third millennium
   .

The salient underlying (if that's not a mixed metaphor) facts are that:

1. The Clinton presidency gave way to the Bush presidency at noon on 20 January 2001.
2. Rudolph Giuliani's term as Mayor of New York (elected in November 1993 and 1997) ran from 1 January 1994 to 31 December 2001.
3. Michael Bloomberg's first term as Mayor (elected in November 2001 & 2005) began on 1 January 2002.
4. Some count the third millennium as beginning on 1 January 2000 (the popular version) and others as beginning on 1 January 2001 (the more pedantic version).

—— Shakescene (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Shakes i miss your point a bit here. I can see the 2000/2001 distinction (I am on the pedantic side but still had a bloody good party on 2000 new years) but how come 1999 i don't get what you are arguing there, can't possibly see how it could be 1999.

One of the more interesting things is the change of calendar in 1582 in catholic countries and 1752 in britain and her colonies. you would think for example in gullivers travels when gulliver moved around between those times he would note the difference (he is constantly mentioning his wristwatch) but never does. neither does sam johnson or an other writer from that time that i have read. SimonTrew (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If the

second millennium according to overwhelming popular (but not to hyper-pedantic) usage ended on 31 December 1999, then we've been in the third millennium since then (1999). —— Shakescene (talk

) 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes "since" is used as a synonym for "after" and sometimes it isn't, which leads to the ambiguity. When I (correctly) write that "every Republican presidential candidate since 1964 has carried Kansas" you can't tell for certain how Kansas voted in 1964. I can also, without contradicting reality, write "every Republican presidential candidate since 1968 has carried Kansas", since in fact Kansas broke stride to vote for Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson against Senator Barry Goldwater (R) in 1964 (and for the Republican former Vice-President Richard Nixon in 1968). With the exception of 1964, Kansas has voted for every Republican presidential candidate since 1936 (when she voted against her own Republican Governor Alf Landon to re-elect Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt), or is that more properly, since 1940? —— Shakescene (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Date-ranging to "the present" is bad practice on WP, as acknowledged in the style guides. "The present" is no longer the present next year. Tony (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  But in (almost?) all cases the thing that the range applies to will still be from a certain start point to "the present" at any given future "present" until it comes to an end, at which point neither "since" nor "the present" will be correct and the range will have defined start and end points. For example, as of the timestamp of this comment:

  1. The current monarch of the United Kingdom has been part of the House of Windsor "from 1917 to the present"
  2. The current monarch of the United Kingdom has been part of the House of Windsor "since 1917".

  Both statements are currently equally true, and unless something drastic happens, both will continue to be equally true in 1, minute, 1 week, 1 year, 35 years, etc from now. However, as per Shakescene's point, you cannot determine from statement 2 whether the monarch of the United Kingdom in 1917 was a member of the House of Windsor or not - hence it is ambiguous.

  For something with a forseeable end:

  1. The Czech Republic has held the presidency of the Council of the European Union from January 2009 to the present
  2. The Czech Republic has held the presidency of the Council of the European Union since January 2009

  Both are currently true, and will continue to be true until 23:59 (UTC?) on 30 June 2009. After then though, both statements will be equally incorrect until changed to

  • The Czech Republic held the presidency of the Council of the European Union from January–June 2009

  Thus the only difference is that one statement is more ambiguous than the other - i.e. based soley on statement 1, you cannot definitively answer the question did the Czech Republic hold the presidency in January 2009? Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The "since" version is preferable, don't you think? Tony (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, exactly the opposite. The "since" version is ambiguous and so I prefer the "to present" form. In prose we should, imho, generally discourage "since" except in situations where both precise dating isn't the overriding concern and it is stylistically the better choice (for example "since the mid 14th Century" is fine). In infoboxes I think the "to present" form should be mandated. Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I know you gave an example above where it does matter, and deserves to be spelled out. But in most cases, it's perfectly clear that "Since 1946" includes 1946, and doesn't start from 1947 ... isn't it? Tony (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the use of the phrase "Since X" is generally understood to be inclusive of X rather than exclusive. While the "From X to Present" is somewhat less ambiguous as far as that is concerned I do not think the potential for confusion warrants a mandate. Both constructs are equally valid and I seriously doubt that it is a big enough issue to merit a change to the MoS. Shereth 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "since" is preferable, and that there really isn't any reason to change the MOS. Plastikspork (talk) 21:06, 9 June

but "since" can sometimes lay false scent. Since 2001 New Year fell on a Sunday... the reader is temporarily sent the wrong way (and I don't know it if did there must be a calendar on this ne computer but I can't seem to find one!) Personally I always write "because" for that reason UNLESS i am talking about dates. I am not sure if that point is relevant to MOSNUM but perhaps more widely to MOS saying do not use "since" EXCEPT for date ranges. Of course I am putting it very roughlky here I am not suggesting that as an exact wording. SimonTrew (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)