Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 127

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I just wrote Template:tdate. You might find it useful. ___A. di M. 11:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You should be aware of {{

dts}} which has been used in tables for sorting for a long time. Vegaswikian (talk

) 15:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The point of tdate is to vertically align them by using three-letter abbreviation and mono-spaced fonts. (As a bonus, it also has the functionality of dts, except that it also works for yearless dates.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. di M. (talk • contribs) 2009-10-01T16:07:27

Should we use abbreviations for Month names? As far as I can see we should only use Months written out per

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates (last bullet point "However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness.") Nsaa (talk

) 17:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Under "Longer periods" there's "Abbreviations such as Feb are used only where space is extremely limited, such as in tables and infoboxes." A table where you might want to use DD Mmm YYYY but not YYYY-MM-DD is Large_Hadron_Collider#Test_timeline (it used to use YYYY-MM-DD but I've just changed it). ___A. di M. 18:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Longer_periods:

• AD and BC are the traditional ways of referring to these eras. However, the CE and BCE is becoming more common in academic and some religious writing. No preference is given to either style.
  • Do not use CE or AD unless the date would be ambiguous without it. e.g. "The Norman Conquest took place in 1066." not 1066 CE or AD 1066.
  • BCE and CE or BC and AD are written, in upper case, spaced, and without periods (full stops).
  • Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but not both in the same article. AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (106 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC).

Any reason for all the duplicate Wikilinks? I was momentarily wondering why we have separate articles for AD and BC; of course, we don't – both links both point to Anno Domini. The current formatting almost implies editors should link these terms on every occurance, which I'm sure is not intended. Any objections to removing all those links except the first instances of AD and CE? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd change the links in the first sentence to AD and BC and CE and BCE so that it doesn't look like they go to different places. I agree to remove links from all subsequent occurrences. ___A. di M. 15:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd do the same. JIMp _talk·cont 17:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur with A. di M. and Jimp. TheFeds 18:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. SimonTrew (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, looks like strong consensus. I've implemented A. di M.'s suggestion here, at the main MoS, and at Tony's condensed version. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't know if there was any final formal consensus, but I and several others felt during a recent discussion that this should be left up to the editors of a particular article, since (as I put it) there are people whose birthplace and/or place of death are as significant as the exact dates (e.g.

Gauguin, Barack Obama), while for many other subjects these places are of secondary or tertiary interest for most readers (some minor artist who was born and died in Paris, or minor thinker who lived and died in London). It's a relatively-recent discussion in the archives of this talk page or the Manual of Style's. Other ready-reference books (e.g. Petit Larousse vs Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia) are not uniform in whether they add places to the initial dates. —— Shakescene (talk

) 09:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• But here are all sides of that discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_124#Birthplace_in_opening

—— Shakescene (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Shakescene I think I was involved with that discussion. My view and I think yours is that a date is important for itself, not for someone being dead or born on that day or it is St georges day or whatever. So I would say Hitler's birthday is important because of the postfacist organisation that names itself after his birthday or pretends not to, and would say that Gauguin's birthday is not because we remember him for his work not what day he happened to be born. SimonTrew (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the years are important for placing someone's life, achievements and failures in time, but the day and month are usually not (unless, say, [s]he died a month before or after an election or winning the Nobel Prize). I feel similarly about places of birth and death; sometimes they might be significant and sometimes not. I think some people do think it significant, for example, that Napoleon was a Corsican and Hitler an Austrian by birth, or that some of the great British writers were born in Ireland and India. I don't think a uniform rule applies as well here as it would to a printed ready-reference book, since we have Information Boxes to help readers who just need to check an exact date and place of birth and/or death in a handy and predictable place. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Shakescene.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed a huge range of date formats, but I just ran across a new one queried (by the user) at the user's talk page, "1940 21 November". See Queen Victoria#Issue and User talk:AndreaMimi#Correct form?. I think that most of us here, whatever our other preferences, logic or bias might be, would agree that this seems to combine the worst features of every other date format. You can argue for "September 3, 1940", "3 September 1940" and even in some cases for "1940 September 3", while we're arguing at the moment over where and whether "1940-09-03" should be used. But I can think of no good reason for YYYY-D-MMMM off the top of my head. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No - better if we don't have that sort of date IMO. But we don't need a new rule as

WP:MOSNUM#Full date formatting already says this. Pfainuk talk

09:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the dates (see

Victoria of the United Kingdom#Children of Victoria and Albert). ¶ It would be nice if there were another place to discuss style issues in general, and editors' specific questions about their own non-MoS articles, without necessarily thinking about specific changes to (or retentions within) one of the Manuals of Style. Not only would the conversations be freer and less stilted, it might mean that discussions here would be sharper and more focussed on the Manuals' own language, organization and direction. —— Shakescene (talk

) 18:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh. What will they think of next.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This edit popped up today on my watchlist. I wondered about the Colon, and looked at

• I see that the
  Military time
  article says that the colon is omitted;
• I see that the Japan Standard Time article uses the colon;
• I see that Appendix A of Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps (RFC3339) speaks to human readability, and that time-numoffset therein suggests that the colon should be used;
• I see that an ISO web page titled Numeric representation of Dates and Time appears to say that the colon should be used, but that this summary of the international standard date and time notation linked from the ISO 8601 article says that the colon may be omitted.

I think that both project page sections mentioned above would benefit from the addition of style guidance regarding this. FWICS, the guidance should probably be that the leading zero should be present where appropriate in four-digit expressions of time (e.g., "0800" or "08:00"), and the colon should be omitted in expressions of time in a context implying military time, and should be required (or perhaps should be optional) for four-digit expressions of time in other contexts. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I assure you that everyone I have ever met in the United States knows that 12:00 PM is noon and 12:00 AM is midnight. It's written that way on opening hours signs, spoken in common speech, and written in legal documents. This business about it being ambiguous is just shocking to me. Who doesn't know how to tell time? On the other hand, I prefer 24 hour time, but I'm also confident that most Americans can translate it but would prefer 12 hour time. -143.215.96.183 (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The United States Congress has entrusted in 15 U.S.C. 261 the Secretary of Commerce in coordination with the Secretary of the Navy with the duty to interpret Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) in the US. UTC is the basis of timekeeping in the US, and in effect "Secretary of Commerce" means the National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST says it is an error to write "12:00 AM" or "12:00 PM" as explained below. The anonymous editor at 143.215.96.183 says NIST does not know how to keep time. Hmm...who should I believe? Such a tough decision. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could say this: Just use the form of time most familiar to most people for whom English is their first language. My son is in the military and he knows both military and standard civilian time. Hospital nurses use 24-hour time with colons, but they too are familiar with classic civilian time (7:30 PM). However, most people don’t use military time and don’t use 24-hour clocks. So, were it me, I’d do what the Associated Press does and what magazines like Newsweek and Time do, and what pretty much any quality publication does when they want to communicate clearly and unambiguously to the widest possible audience. That would be to do what is (fortunately) common all over en.Wikipedia and is exemplified in our September 11 attacks article: to write “Tuesday, September 11, 2001 at 8:46 AM (UTC‑4)”. But…

Foolish me. I believe this where someone weighs in here regarding how the BIPM or the ISO has some weird standard for how to write times and how Wikipedia should use it because it is an *international standard*. Or perhaps this is where someone cites some Google search *proving* that 24-hour time is most common in real-world usage and should be used here. (*yawn*) To that I respond, “I wish you hadn’t even asked the question, Wtmitchell, and had simply employed your own common sense, which would have likely been a hundred times better than some of the advise you’ll get here. Greg L (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I do however, see an issue over which editors can get all excited and start engaging in the MOSNUM-equivalent of Turkish butt-stabbings: we can argue over whether it is “8:46 am” (as our September 11 attacks article says) or “8:46 AM”, which I think is most common and most familiar (but I’m not sure). Greg L (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is unusual to see the 24-hour clock used in written prose in generalist publications, but it is common in certain spheres of life such as transport and military matters. So it probably depends on the subject of the article. I notice a big difference between North America and elsewhere. It was a shock to me to find US rail and bus timetables written in the 12-hour clock, something not seen in Europe for very many decades. -- Alarics (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem a bit jaded, Greg. Powers ^T 12:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A metric butt-load of weapons-grade bullonium has been shoveled here this week, Powers. To some here, I would really like to say “F*ck off; you’re arguments are profoundly retarded.” Instead, I have to be *civil*. (*sigh*) Greg L (talk) Stardate 2009.27291

Civility is not something to be endured, it should be embraced as the social lubricant that prevents even worse disruptions. Powers ^T 22:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I can beat that one: Why can’t we all just get along and love our fellow man as we love ourselves? Why can’t we truly embrace multiculturalism and learn from each other and become enriched by our differences, rather than fear those who might be different and allow those differences to divide us? There is truly no “right” or “wrong”; these are divisive labels. Greg L (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Greg. The twelve-hour clock is generally best for local time. Where the 24-hour clock may be useful would be for times given in UTC. JIMp _talk·cont 13:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The 24-hour clock is generally used where precision is necessary, and in international documents. You normally use a colon for punctuation in prose, as in 12:45 or 21:15, but the colon is often left out by the military and other specialized groups. The 12-hour clock has a few ambiguities, notably whether 12 a.m. is 12 midnight or 12 noon (it is actually 12 midnight, but many people don't know that), so it is best to use 12 midnight and 12 noon instead of 12 a.m. and 12 p.m. There are also some inconsistencies such as whether to use uppercase or lowercase and dots or no dots (AM, PM, A.M., P.M., am, pm, a.m., p.m.), and whether to use a colon or a dot between hour and minute (12:45 or 12.45) The British tend to use the dot and the Americans the colon. The national variation in the style of the 12-hour clock is the main reason for the international popularity of the 24-hour clock.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my being the smart-arse but seconds are used where precision is necessary. JIMp _talk·cont 09:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

RockyMtnGuy wrote "it is actually 12 midnight, but many people don't know that".

NIST disagrees

:

Are noon and midnight 12 a.m. or 12 p.m.?

If you look on the website of Britain's National Physical Laboratory you will find similar advice. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jc3s5h. That 12 am is actually 12 midnight is a convention not followed by everyone. The fact is that midnight is just as much am as it is pm and noon is neither. 12:00 am = 00:00 and 12 pm = 24:00 would be the only logical convention to adopt, i.e. the only convention which flows logically from the meanings of "am" & "pm". But, of course, that would probably cause confusion so it's best just to avoid them. JIMp _talk·cont 09:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My two cents: The 24-hour clock is widely used in writing in most of Europe, including Britain. (In speech, the 12-hour clock is probably more common in most informal situation, but then here we write "do not", not "don't"...) I think both should be allowed, while recommending consistency within each article; IIRC, last time I checked that was what MOSNUM did. As for the colon, I can't see the usefulness of omitting it (except perhaps some specialized military articles, but using a colon there, too, shouldn't be the end of the world). I have no opinion either way about the leading zero; personally, I tend to use it in tables but to omit it in prose, but it's not the kind of thing I would normally bother to change in an already-existing time of day, no matter how bored I were. YMMV. ___A. di M. 16:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I quoted the Oxford Style Manual when it said that 12 a.m. is 12 midnight (in a completely authoritative tone and a British accent). You could probably find an American style manual that thinks it is 12 noon. This is why people give up in frustration and switch to the 24-hour clock. On the 24-hour clock, noon is 12:00, and midnight is either 00:00 or 24:00. Using ISO date and time format, 2009-09-30 24:00 is midnight tonight, and 2009-10-01 00:00 is midnight tomorrow morning. Whichever you pick is doesn't matter - both represent the same time. Leaving out the colon is a military convention and not really suitable for an encyclopedia. The military has all kinds of conventions that civilians wouldn't normally use. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should not omit the colon (nor use a full stop in its place). There are articles about the military but this is an encyclopædia not a military publication. JIMp _talk·cont 09:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify RockyMtnGuy's post, and supposing that ISO refers to ISO 8601, "2009-10-01 00:00 is midnight tomorrow morning" contains two separate fields, an ISO 8601 date, and an ISO 8601 time. It is up to the reader to realize that these fields go together. If one wanted to write that as a ISO 8601 extended date and time representation, one would have to write "2009-10-01T00:00". Not that that has anything to do with the formats presently accepted in Wikipedia. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarifying even further, ISO 8601:2004 may have said it better:

• Midnight will normally be represented as [00:00] or [24:00].
• The end of one calendar day [24:00] coincides with [00:00] at the start of the next calendar day, e.g. [24:00] on 12 April 1985 is the same as [00:00] on 13 April 1985.

My own preference, resulting from on my computer background would be to always use 00:00 for midnight.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I seriously hope all this talk about ISO 8601 and military time is purely academic. As far as I know, every military-related article on Wikipedia can be considered as being directed to a general-interest readership. The same goes for medical-related articles (also an industry that tends to use a 24-hour clock). For guidance, we need to look no further than what is far and wide the most common practice in the real world. It’s just that simple. Greg L (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that what is the most common practice in some parts of the real world isn't the most common practice in other parts of it. Would American really be more confused by "23:04" than by "lorry"? ___A. di M. 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm… let me see… which is the more confusing? You got me stumped on that one. But you’re asking the wrong question. It isn’t “which practice causes confusion that can be compared to something that is even worse.” The proper question to ask here is “which practice causes the least confusion with our target readership.” Those practitioners of reading time primarily on a 24-hour clock are much rarer than those who do so on a 12-hour clock. More importantly, those who understand a 24-hour clock, also always fully understand the 12-hour clock. The reverse is not true. So the proper practice on Wikipedia is to use a 12-hour clock since it is understood by all. Greg L (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess that people who understand "lorry" also understand "truck" (given that Hollywood films don't get dubbed in British English) but the reverse is not true. So do we ban British English altogether? Ditto for "33 CE" v "AD 33", "therefore" v "so", "pharyngitis" v "sore throat", "otolaryngologist" v "throat doctor", yadda yadda yadda. The Simple English Wikipedia exists for a reason. BTW, I once did meet a guy working at a train station in Paris who misunderstood what "the train leaving this evening at nine o' clock" meant, and had to explain him "I meant nine pee em: twenty-one!"; but Frenchmen are a particular case, so that doesn't count. <g,d&r> (A friend of mine hypothesized they deliberately pretend not to understand any language other than French, or even French spoken with a foreign accent, just because they don't like dealing with foreigners.) ___A. di M. 01:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and, again; standards like ISO 8601 don’t have the slightest bearing in this discussion because most of our readership has never heard of the standard (let alone read it). Also, most of our readership has never written out a date like “2009-11-09T19:40”. Common practices in the English-speaking world are much different; this much is too obvious. If an ambiguous time like 12:00 AM (12:00 midnight) needs to be written, we can simply write it “12:00 midnight” instead of “00:00”. Everyone—including my 87-year-old mother—understands the former; many don’t understand the latter. Just because something is a cool idea and ought to be adopted is never, ever a valid reason for any publication to adopt it. The objective of all technical writing is to communicate with minimal confusion. Just because an idea like “256 kibibytes” is a good idea and is an international standard, certainly does not mean that it is the clearest way to communicate in writing. Greg L (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

While I generally agree that we should not prematurely adopt trendy notation, it would be ambiguous if I were to write "midnight September 30, 2008, in Miami". I would have to write something like "midnight September 30/October1, 2008, in Miami". If I were writing an article that contained many references to midnight, it might be expedient to adopt a 24 hour clock just for that article. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Or “midnight, the morning of October 1, 2008.” There are any number of ways to communicate this time of the day clearly and unambiguously using conventional terminology and writing style that doesn’t call attention to itself. Writing “2008-11-01T00:00”, while a splendid method in theory, is ambiguous simply because it is unfamiliar to so many people. Moreover, being able to cite the odd case of “precisely midnight” is certainly no excuse in the world to adopt less common ways to write times in general here on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  And no-one is proposing to do that; but writing "The train departed on 2 October 2008 at 21:45 and arrived on 3 October at 4:53" sound perfectly good to me. (I'd still write "midnight" rather that "0:00" for some reason, but I'm not sure of which. But I wouldn't usually refer to a time before dawn as "morning", either. Anyway, that's relative: 4am is morning for the baker who's just got up, but night for the bartender who is just about to lie down. "Since October 1 inclusive" or "until September 30 inclusive" are quite unambiguous.) ___A. di M. 01:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as we aren’t introducing United Federation of Planets time, military time, ISO time, etcetera, I’m fine. Plain ol’ everyday time on a 12-hour clock will be perfectly clear to everyone. How we handle “exactly midnight” isn’t what I was prepared to deal with in this thread (other than the fact that we aren’t properly addressing the problem by adopting MILSPEC-UFOP-348540-B-2007.) Greg L (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the bottom of any article: the boilerplate text includes a statement like "This page was last modified on 4 September 2009 at 23:13." Look at the headers of any e-mail message: there'll be a field like "Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 17:40:26 -0700 (PDT)". Look at the BBC website and you'll see "17:05 Europe Today". Anyone who doesn't understand what 13:57 means will have many other problems on the Internet. The 24-hour clock wasn't invented by either ISO or the United Federation of Planets, even if they might happen to endorse it. ___A. di M. 16:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the original proposal, it boils down to suggesting that 2:00 and 200 be avoided in favor of 02:00 and 0200. It also seems to suggest 0200 in a military context, and is undecided about non-military contexts. I don't think anyone writes 02:00 AM, so I think there is an unstated assumption that 24 hour time is acceptable in any article. The only reader group I'm sure would prefer to see 12 hour time is Americans; I just am not equipped to guess whether the number of people who are fluent in English exceeds the number of Americans or not. I do think that the subset of Americans who read Wikipedia, that is, those who use computers, have had considerable exposure to 24 hour time, and could cope with it. In any case, any proposal about the extent to which 12 hour time should be favored would be a new proposal. I think the current proposal can be dropped with no action. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the 12-hour clock and I'm no American. JIMp _talk·cont 09:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, Americans and other readers could “cope” with “mebibyte” too. That’s not the point, is it? Best practice on Wikipedia would clearly be to express time in the format that everybody understands, which is 12-hour clock with colons, even though you can point to some segments of our English-speaking readership that can “cope” with 24-hour time. Nor does it matter that an article like

B-52 or United States Navy are “military contexts,” we don’t have military people coming to Wikipedia to set their watches for when their next meeting with the colonel occurs. We do, however, have an abundance of plain ordinary civilians reading those articles. As for time formats MOSNUM says are “acceptable,” why, you just go ahead and knock yourself out using 24-hour time in your articles (because you can apparently point to people who you are certain can “cope” with it); I prefer to write my articles so they read most naturally with the least confusion using a time format absolutely everyone recognizes. (silly me). Greg L (talk

) 23:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Mebibyte" is a bad comparison. Probably less than 5% of readers know what a mebibyte is, whereas the fraction of people able to understand 17:05 is probably closer than 70% (and much higher than that among people able to use a web browser). And someone who doesn't understand what 17 and 18 mean in "17:05 BST (18:05 UTC)" is unlikely to understand what BST and UTC mean, either; so do we convert any time to all time zones containing at least ten million native English speakers so that practically anyone would understand? The "the format that everybody understands" argument would lead to the ban of British English in favour (sorry, "favor") of American English, as everybody understands "truck" due to Hollywood films (sorry, "movies") but not everyone understands "lorry". (It'd also ban 10²⁹ in favour of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, but nobody would ever be so perverse to write the latter.) BTW, I had the impression that you was proposing to discourage the 24-hour clock, but if I understand your last post correctly — I'm getting older than the age at which you can recognize sarcasm with more than 99.9% confidence — you are just expressing your personal preference and you're fine with the current wording of the MoS. If so, so am I, so this "issue" is resolved. --___A. di M. 10:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Quoting you: …the fraction of people able to understand 17:05 is probably closer than 70%. Did you know that causing unnecessary confusion in technical writing is just that: “unnecessary”? So using a date format that is recognized by *close to 70%* of our readership when there is a format that is recognized by 100% is a profoundly dumb thing to do, don’t you think? It’s just more of this space-cadet philosophy of “it’s such a damned cool way of writing time, we ought to use it here and indoctrinate those readers who don’t understand it nor use it in their daily life.” And, no, I’m not “fine” with the current MOSNUM wording permitting a practice that unnecessarily confuses 30% of our readership. But I actually don’t particularly care about this issue and am pleased to let this issue lie as I and am no longer as retarded as I used to be. Greg L (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people using en-wiki strongly strive to understand AM/PM. You now turns the argument on it's head. 1:00 PM/9:00 PM (I hope I've cosen the right one) is the problem, not 13:00 or 21:00. 24h clock should clearly be strongly encouraged so more than the US population can easily read the articles. Nsaa (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Do xenophobic Frenchmen use en.wiki, or do you have another "lot of people" in mind? If the latter, and if you're right, having conversions "21:00 (9:00 PM)" much like we have conversion "47 kilometres (29 mi)" might make some sense, although people able to convert from 24- to 12-hour time and vice versa in less time than they can tell left from right (such as me) would be astonished by that (though that would not hinder their understanding). Now when you give conversions to UTC that might start being clumsy, but an idea would be to assume that whoever understands UTC understands 24-hour clock, and writing "21:05 (9:05 pm) local time (19:05 UTC)". What about that? ___A. di M. 18:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that more than 70% of readers understand "lorry" or "10²⁹"? If not, would you recommend against them? And anyway, most of the time zones are not understood by far more than 30% of readers. (For example, I understand Central European Time (UTC +1), Central European Summer Time (UTC +2), Greenwitch Meridian Time (UTC), and British Summer Time (UTC +1), but I would have to look up any other time zone to understand it. Now, converting any time to any other time zone is infeasible, so we normally just convert to UTC: "19:50 CEST (17:50 UTC)". Now, I guess that any person who can't understand 17:50 can't understand UTC, either, so writing "7:50 pm CEST (5:50 pm UTC)" is no improvement, as there probably isn't one single person who can understand the latter but not the former. ___A. di M. 18:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not simply "9:05 pm local time (19:05 UTC)"? JIMp _talk·cont 17:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good; can {{convert}} handle this, or can it be modified to do so? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it already does many jobs; it'd make more sense to make a new template for that. ___A. di M. 10:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"9:05 pm local time (19:05 UTC)" sounds fine, but I don't think a template is a good idea. The editor would have to know what time zone abbreviation would be accepted by the template (EDT, MST, etc.). The editor would have to know better than to use the template before January 1, 1961, UTC, because UTC didn't exist before then [1]. The template would have to have an extensive array of time zone abbreviations, and it is quite possible some of the common ones in various languages collide with each other. The editor would have to know whether daylight saving time was in effect at the time and place of interest, and the daylight savings time laws have been in a state of flux ever since it was invented. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I'd still allow "21:05 local time". Personally, I'd prefer to suggest to give the local time in the format that is dominant in formal written English in the place where the time is local, such as the 24-hour clock in Ireland and Malta, or the 12-hour clock in the United States; and I'd consider both formats acceptable if there's no dominant formal written English format there (either because both formats are widely used—as in the United Kingdom or Canada, or because people don't normally write in English—as in France or Japan). But that'd be bordering

WP:CREEP, so I'm fine with considering both acceptable regardless.) ___

A. di M. 15:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there an opinion/policy on whether the {{

What is the correct grammatical number for nouns preceded by number whose magnitude is strictly less than 1? It appears to me that the singular is used in American English and the plural in British English, but I've never seen a source explicitly dealing with this. ___A. di M. 23:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In English there are few absolute rules. That said, to me as an American, "0.57 second" looks more "correct", but "0.57 seconds" looks and sounds more "natural". I would say that neither form is clearly incorrect, so you can use either form. Marco polo (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the terminology is related to the magnitude of the number. E.g., "0 seconds" is usually written in the plural, isn't it? I think unit terms are usually

SI documents to see if there's an established international standard. Another option would be using "57 centiseconds" or "570 milliseconds", but I doubt that's what you want. :) Indeterminate (talk

) 01:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If there's a particular place where this is causing difficulty, perhaps someone here could suggest a sound turnaround (for example, and depending on context, 57 hundredths of a second, 0.57 sec. or 0.57 sec). And why is this being forked or duplicated to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language?

¶ As for the style, even when it's something concrete (or that could be concrete) like a penny, a pound or a dollar, English-speakers always pluralize it in speech when giving decimal fractions, but not when giving normal fractions. Half a dollar, five-sixths of a shilling, and 25 pence (or cents), but 0.25 pounds (or dollars). I'd stick to idiomatic English that will not make Anglophone readers hesitate, and 0.37 second will just look stiff and weird, or hyper-grammatical. 0.37 seconds may not be technically correct according to the style-books, but it won't look wrong to 95%-plus of readers. They just won't notice it the way they might notice (and wonder at) 0.37 second. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had to make that choice several times in the last month or so, for example in kilometre (is it 0.6214 miles or 0.6214 mile?). As for me, the plural sounds more "natural" (but I guess that's just because my native language, Italian, uses it), but I've seen some sources using the singular for such numbers (e.g. "1.782×10⁻²⁷ gram", "10⁻¹² second", "10⁻⁷ metre" in The Feynman Lectures on Physics), and the only other thing these sources appear to have in common is that they're written in American English, so I guessed that's an ENGVAR issue. (Also, on the reference desk I just intended to provide a pointer to here, because I thought the people hanging around there were the ones most likely to have clearer ideas about that; too bad someone replied directly there. Also, I shouldn't have used prescriptivist words (What is the correct grammatical number for), but rather descriptivist ones (Which grammatical number is used for); so I clarify the question, "Is it the case that "0.57 second" is more common in American English and "0.57 seconds" is in British English? Does anyone know about a source dealing with this matter?" ___A. di M. 10:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a text:

Names like 'metre' or coulomb' are the names of standard quantities and are used in sentences like ordinary nouns. We write 'twenty coulombs' or '20 coulombs', 'one tenth of a coulomb' or '0.1 coulomb'.

• Harrison, R.D., ed. (1972). "SI units". Book of Data: Chemistry, Physical Science, Physics. Harlow: Longman for the Nuffield Foundation. p. 4.
  ISBN 0 582 82672 1
  .

which in turn cites:

• McGlashan, M.L. (1968). Physico-chemical quantities and units. Monographs for Teachers No. 15. Royal Institute of Chemistry.

--Redrose64 (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I for one have never seen the singular appended to anything but the unit value (that is, one second). The reason for this is rooted in the meaning of the word "singular" – strictly speaking, something less than one is not singular. So it makes sense. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If it's 1.00000001 seconds, we use the plural because it's more than 1 second; but we also do the same when it's 0.99999999999 seconds when it's less than 1 second; I even write 1.0 seconds or 1.0000 seconds, rather than 1.0000 second. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    • That makes good sense, because it's contextually clear with "1.0 seconds" that sub-integral numbers are being analysed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, so it's not an ENGVAR issue; it's more an issue of grammarians recommending something without ever checking what native English speakers actually do, like "don't split infinitives" or "don't end sentences with prepositions". (OTOH, I think Feynman isn't the kind of guy who gives a damn about what grammarians say without ever checking what native English speakers actually do, and I guess his editor Leighton isn't, either. So, maybe there are speakers who do find it "natural" to use the singular in these cases.) ___A. di M. 10:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that it might be a prescriptivist thing. Pluralising anything but ±1 doesn't seem right to me (even "e^2πi second" seems a little awkward). I'm guessing that the prescriptivists may have thought that "0.5 second" is either nothing but a short form of "0.5 of a second" or a different way of writing "1⁄2 (a) second". English is not maths. JIMp _talk·cont 12:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the way that we were taught at school (in England) was basically: "half of a second" should be written "0.5 second", not "0.5 seconds", because "[of] a second" is singular. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The style guides don't really seem to address the issue, but the most common rule seems to be: if a value is greater than 1, it should be plural and if it is 1 or less it should be singular. E.g. 1.01 seconds, 1 second, 0.9 second, 0.1 second. I think the basic idea is that 0.9 second is short for 0.9 of a second. However, for values of zero or less they seem to go back to being plural again: 0 seconds, -1 seconds. SI abbreviations avoid the issue by never using plurals. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Apply

Yeah, but my point was that not everybody knows which national variety of English uses which grammatical number in these cases. But now I see that nobody does, so I agree we'd better keep it off the MoS. ___A. di M. 13:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wtmitchell posted the following in Talk:Grammatical_number#.220.57_second.22_or_.220.57_seconds.22.3F:

The question, "What is the correct grammatical number for nouns preceded by number whose magnitude is strictly less than 1?" was recently asked at

WT:MOSNUM#"0.57 second" or "0.57 seconds"?. The answer so far arrived at there seems to be "Nobody knows". The question doesn't seem to be addressed in this article. Perhaps it should be. Wtmitchell (talk)

(earlier Boracay Bill) 04:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer varies from language to language even for languages that share a similar system of grammatical number.

There are other questions that also arise about how to match a grammatical number with a numeral that is not a positive whole number.

Even if the language has only "singular" and "plural" grammatical numbers, a question arises whenever the numeral is less than one (including zero or negative as well as fractional), or more than one but less than two (a mixed-fraction numeral).

For languages with a dual number distinct from singular and from plural, the question arises not only of what to do with 0.5, 1.5, 0.8, 1.2, etc., but also 1.8, 2.5, 2.2, 2.8 etc.

For English the answer appears to be usually "if it's not 'one', use a plural". For French, the answer appears to be different. I know this has been stated in print and in an online-searchable source, but I don't remember what the source was.

So perhaps the answer should be given in each specific language's section on grammatical number, and this cross-linguistic article on "Grammatical Number" should only mention that such sections contain such answers.

In English it may depend on how the fraction-numeral is written and pronounced. We might say "half a second" but "0.5 seconds"; "fifty-seven hundredths of a second" but "0.57 seconds".

It is less clear how grammatical number should match up with a mixed-fraction numeral greater than 1 but less than 2. We would probably say "1.5 seconds", but would we say "one-and-a-half second" or "one-and-a-half seconds"? I think we would probably say "one-and-a-half seconds" but "a second and a half".

I apologetically admit that the above doesn't satisfy the "verifiability" nor the "no original research" requirements of Wikipedia.

You say "The question doesn't seem to be addressed in this article. Perhaps it should be." I encourage you to do so. (Is that being WP:BOLD ?)

--Eldin raigmore (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Really, there's no reason to leave it protected anymore. Please comment at the relevant request section. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been merged back. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please enlighten me on what formatting to use when editing music articles infoboxes? 2005-Present? Or Since 2005? Or are both acceptable Thanks! GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We had a discussion at

WP:OTHERDATE. No dog in the fight, just one of the editors on the Simple Plan article.--Wehwalt (talk

) 16:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess everyone else is confused too. GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The NBSP guidelines make sense for the most part, but I'm a little concerned by them. Some articles are now getting tons of   tags added into them, especially those related to measurement... and even in some other articles, like in the "official breed standard" section edited in this diff by my

My thought and opinion is that it would be a good idea to have a feature in MediaWiki which turns underscores to non-breaking spaces in the rendered page, except in URLs and within <code> or <source> tags. I think that more than 99% of underscores in typical articles are in template parameters, HTML attributes, etc. where they don't get rendered, and 99% of the ones which are rendered are in URLS or in computer code within <code> or <source> tags. If such a feature were implemented, a source of 5_kg would look much less cluttered than 5 kg and no more cluttered than 5 kg. ___A. di M. 19:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

To the new editor, it would seem that underscores turn into regular spaces; that's just too confusing. If you want a new MediaWiki feature, how about turning &nbsp; into a hard space, but have the editor render the non-breaking space in a special color so it can be distinguished from a regular space. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 October 2009

The fact is that some browsers convert literal hard spaces into regular spaces when submitting; so I'm not sure that'd work. (Maybe with some JavaScript-based magic, but that'd slow down the page for users with slow connections, so I'm not sure that'd be a good idea.) I don't think someone would be likely to accidentally find out that underscores turn to spaces (how often would they use underscores where they'd be rendered?), but if that's a concern, Noetica once proposed to use ,, for it. ___A. di M. 16:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Being discussed

I have requested comment on the use of the YYYY-MM-DD format at the System time talk page. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be no guidance as to how ratios should be specified.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This Manual of Style states that "put the units most appropriate to them first ... for the UK, they usually are metric units". This is, presumably, based on the fact that the metric system is generally used by the British Government. It is not the system generally used by the British people. Are the latter not the more important, and should actual usage rather than official policy not be the determining factor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam1930 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What reliable source do you have to establish that the British people generally do not use metric units. In what domain do they not use metric units (driving a car, receiving medical care, designing bridges)? Are the non-metric units only spoken, with written transactions (including cash register receipts and product labels) in metric units? --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a talk page. Reliable secondary sources are helpful but not a requirement. The question is what unit is most-readily apparent in each particular case to an ordinary British reader, like the 4-minute 1.6 km (1.0 mile). By the way, I've argued before that the subject of an article can be a poor guide as to the nationality of its possible readers. Britons are probably going to be the most-common readers of

Wolverhampton Wanderers, but who knows who reads Big Ben, Tower of London, Statue of Liberty or Taj Mahal? —— Shakescene (talk

) 23:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the best idea is to follow the sources as a general rule. Yes, this will result in some inconsistency, but I think it's better to be faithful to the sources than consistent with a rigid convention. Of course, many will argue that this is inconsistent and messy, and so it is, but it is a fair reflection of usage in the United Kingdom, which is both inconsistent and changing. Michael Glass (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And I don't agree. I think that the current wording, requiring a modicum of consistency in similar contexts while allowing different units to be used in different contexts, is probably the best approach. We trust editors of articles to determine the most appropriate wording for articles and it only seems fair to trust them to choose the most appropriate units when this is context-dependent. I think that requiring editors use the units used in sources is liable to lead to source tennis, whereby editors insist on using the sources that favour their preferred units (I have seen people accused of this in the past) and is an unnecessary restriction.

Usage of units in the UK is not inconsistent or messy. But it also does not rigidly follow either the imperial or metric system. Rather, it is based on a complicated set of cultural rules, a simplified version of which you can see in the Times Style Guide, cited on MOSNUM. Pfainuk talk 22:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Usage is the guideline - so for UK we use miles for road distances. But we use metric tonnes for shipping. No big deal. Rich Farmbrough, 09:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC).

Sam1930, have you read the ending of the sentence whose beginning you quoted? --___A. di M. 13:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Several articles are appearing on my watchlist (and I guess other people's) with this edit summary

Delink dates (

the associated edits are to unlink previously autoformatted dates. Could this be enhanced to also replace the linking with a {{date}} template call? This would allow readers to decide the format of the dates they see (without linking) using their preferences. Feel free to move my suggestion elsewhere if this is not the best place. -84user (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The {{tl|date} template does not honor the date preferences. There is a dateformat magic word that would do what you want. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This idea has little merit because some of the dates, the ones that are linked, are being processed, while the unlinked dates are not. Readers with date preferences turned on would see a mish-mash of inconsistent dates. Also, the magic word does not work in all situations, such as date ranges, and a sentence like the following:

A major terrorist attack occurred September 11, 2001, in the United States.

would be displayed to a few readers as

A major terrorist attack occurred 11 September 2001, in the United States.

Notice the inappropriate comma in the second version. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that {{date}} template does not react to date preferences. I must have been confused with {{Birth date}} which does appear to follow the preferences but requires an input syntax different to these dates in any case. How about dates in {{cite web}} template's accessdate parameter, whether linked or not (even unlinked dates are being modified by AWB)? I made this suggestion to make the template do the formatting automatically, thereby saving AWB some work. If all cite templates followed the preferences (or used some default) then they would all be consistent within an article. -84user (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have not already done so, please read every discussion mentioned in

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Notes. All the problems with automatically formatting dates are laid out there. Jc3s5h (talk

) 20:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Date autoformatting is a controversial subject; there is no clear consensus that it should be implemented (linked or not), and it still doesn't address a few issues, such as the ability to format specially formatted dates (e.g., ranges such as February 23–24, 2009,), and the fact that 99.5% of our readers (i.e. IPs) don't benefit from this. Please do not encourage users to implement this, through semi-automated means or otherwise. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think "there is no clear consensus" is rather an understatement. There is no consensus, period, unless I'm very mistaken. The community has decided that it just doesn't need this month-day versus day-month thing to be fiddled with in a small number of logged-in WPians' displays, at huge cost. Clutter, further barriers to newbie induction and anon editing, technical problems in ranges, Julian vs Gregorian, etc. Wherever technical means have been tried, the result has always been disasterous. Let's get on with improving articles. Tony (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the very minor advantage of date formatting according to user preference is vastly outweighed by its many many disadvantages. This was all discussed exhaustively (and exhaustingly) in the recent RFC and earlier - let's not start down that road again. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

• Yearless dates (5 March, March 5) are inappropriate unless the year is obvious from the context. There is no such ambiguity with recurring events, such as "January 1 is New Year's Day".

This is not something that will surprise anyone who can find the MOS. I think we can just drop that line. Rich Farmbrough, 23:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

I agree. Pointless instruction creep. Hans Adler 13:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Tony (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Perfect example of instruction creep, I agree.Dejvid (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because this was too big to go into the edit summary, here are my objections to Michael Glass's changes:

• The rule on conversion was changed to require a conversion even in contexts where the entire English-speaking world use the same units. I don't see the need unless there is some difference between different parts of the English-speaking world.
• The exception on places/times/people was changed in such a way that it could be read that the only cases where the exception applied where on US- and UK-related articles. In fact it applies on all articles strongly related to a certain person, time or place - it's just it most commonly makes a difference on US- and UK-related articles.
• The UK-related articles rule was changed in such a way that it could be read that imperial measures could only be used for road distances and draught beer. In fact, these are merely examples - the most obvious examples, perhaps, but not the only ones. Pfainuk talk 11:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously things are being read into my change of wording that were not intended.

• Different parts of the English-speaking world" vs "different English speaking countries" : more concise wording, no essential difference in meaning, but see below.
• "different units for the same measurement" vs "different units for some measurements": slightly more concise wording
• "the "primary" unit should be followed by a conversion in parentheses" vs "follow the "primary" unit with a conversion in parentheses" : replacing a passive voice with the active voice.
• "for example" vs "Examples" There are two examples, each from different parts of the world. This is not a single example as the wording could be taken to imply.

The most important change was to point out that there are two examples where the present wording could be taken as referring to one example where for some unaccountable reason, one river was measured in miles while the other was measured in kilometres. By making the wording clear that these are two examples it clears up this ambiguity. The next important change was to remove the vague phrase "English-speaking world" with a more focused reference to "different English speaking countries". It also removes a phrase which could be taken as suggesting that the whole world is English-speaking, a piece of arrogance that we could do without.

While I note Pfainuk's objections, these two revisions have nothing to do with the concerns that he raised. Michael Glass (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to these two changes.

My issue there in particular focussed around the word as, meaning "because" rather than when or where meaning "if this is a case in which". It read to me as saying effectively: Some countries use different units when dealing with the same measurement. Therefore, you should put a conversion in parentheses after the primary unit. - implying, that we should be putting a conversion in regardless of whether it is needed or not. I don't think that you intended this since it would defy common sense, but that's how I thought it could be read. Pfainuk talk 14:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the points on measurement could be expressed more concisely:

• For topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. For example, in US articles, they usually are United States customary units, and for the UK, they usually are metric units for most measurements, but imperial units for some measurements such as road distances and draught beer (see the examples in Metrication in the United Kingdom and the Times Online style guide under "Metric").

The second sentence is particularly convoluted. I believe that this:

For example, in US articles, they usually are United States customary units, and for the UK, they usually are metric units for most measurements, but imperial units for some measurements such as road distances and draught beer (see the examples in Metrication in the United Kingdom and the Times Online style guide under "Metric").

could be edited to this:

For example, in US articles, they usually are United States customary units, and for the UK, they more often are metric units, with imperial units for some measurements such as road distances (see the examples in Metrication in the United Kingdom and the Times Online style guide under "Metric").

• The policy is not changed, only the wording is trimmed.
• It trims a repetitive phrase 'they usually are metric units for most measurements' to 'they more often are metric units', 6 words instead of 8.
• It excises a reference to 'draught beer'. Very few articles need to refer to draught beer, so why clutter the text?

Any comments? Michael Glass (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It does concern me slightly that the mention of road distances (and draught beer) may be taken as a definitive list, rather than as examples - but I have no counterproposal to prevent that, and we do explicitly say "such as", implying an example rather than a full list.

The other significant area where imperial units are near-universally preferred in UK usage - and which is likely to come up on Wikipedia - is in personal measurements. Height is measured in feet and inches and weight in stones and pounds (and almost never just in pounds, as it is in the US) - this is detailed in the cited style guide, so I don't think we need to spell it out. But it may be a good idea to put "and personal measurements" in place of "and draught beer".

Beyond that, I have no issues with your new wording. Pfainuk talk 22:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the mention of personal height and weight and would further refine the wording like this:

For example, in US articles they are usually United States customary units, and in the UK, they are more often metric units, with imperial units for measurements such as road distances and personal height and weight. See the examples in Metrication in the United Kingdom and the Times Online style guide under "Metric".

I think it reads more naturally to put the adverbial elements after the verbs and to bring the last clause out of the parentheses. Michael Glass (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. Pfainuk talk 08:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear colleagues

This is a reminder that voting is open until 23:59 UTC next Monday 14 December to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. It is an opportunity for all editors with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 to shape the composition of the peak judicial body on the English Wikipedia.

On behalf of the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the format of automatic access dates given by the edit toolbar has changed from "2009-12-08" to "8 December 2009". I think this is very problematic since old access dates are mostly in the YYYY-MM-DD format, and the change creates an inconsistency. I also started a discussion

Looks like the author of the tool changed it on 18 November because someone thought the YYYY-MM-DD format isn't allowed anymore:

Offliner (talk

) 03:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The obvious answer is for the tool not to have a default entry for this field. Just leave it blank and let people type in the date in their preferred format (or the format which is standard for that particular article) -- if, indeed, they want to include accessdate at all, which is often unnecessary, in the case of most news citations for instance. -- Alarics (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the last statement (I dig up many news stories for research & citation long after they were published), but it's probably a good idea just to let the editor pick his or her preferred date format so long as it isn't XX/ZZ/YYYY or XX/ZZ/YY where (to the reader, whatever the editor's intent) either XX or ZZ could be the month. I'd prefer to ditch YYYY-MM-DD in non-specialist contexts too, but clearly there's no consensus yet for that in footnotes. I think the same about the date of publication. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the policy on "throwaway" use of imperial units in article texts, e.g. "a few feet", "a few miles", "a few yards", etc.? Should international users be expected to know what rough quantities these descriptions refer to? Mixsynth (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd add something like (1 ft ≈ 30 cm) after the first time the feet is used that way, and hope the reader will remember that at least until the end of the article. (This is the approach I used in

2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout

12:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to say that, generally speaking, we shouldn't be using either imperial or metric units casually in this way. Better to give an accurate figure and then convert it. But failing that I'd agree with A. di M. Looking at the case in point (A1 road (Great Britain)), there doesn't seem to me to be much benefit in giving either: we can probably reasonably assume that if a pub is being mentioned in this context it's near enough to the road to make it a convenient stopping point.

I'd also point out that metric and imperial units are probably in the same boat here: either both "a couple of metres" and "a few feet" would really need to be converted, or neither would. Pfainuk talk 12:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As a test, how do you react to a passing reference to "several versts" or "many fathoms down" or "a few extra pennyweight" or "a couple of li" or some similar unit that you may have seen but of whose actual magnitude you have little idea? Would some conversion help? (And as a city boy, I don't really know quite what an acre is on the ground, so a conversion from hectares to acres doesn't always help me that much.) —— Shakescene (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that was addressed to me, but if so then yes, generally speaking they would need conversion. To clarify, on the article in question, the OP replaced "a few feet" with "a couple of metres" ([2]). This and the focus on imperial units in his discussion here lead me to believe that s/he felt that the metric versions did not need converting. As I say, better to either to give an explicit measurement or a rough conversion in the manner A. di M. describes, and to do it in all cases, regardless of which measuring system the original measure is given in.

When I said "there doesn't seem to me to be much benefit in giving either", I meant I'd get rid of the measurement entirely. If we're talking about a pub on a road, it doesn't really matter whether the pub's five feet away from the road or fifty. And if it was a lot further, we'd say so. Pfainuk talk 13:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just one thing the original poster failed to mention, he has been going around changing instances of "a few yards", "a couple of yards" etc on UK roads articles to "a few metres, "a couple of metres". As clearly stated in the guidelines UK roads use imperial measurements in this respect (notably yards and miles) and as such he keeps getting reverted. Many of his edits are starting to become tedious and disruptive. Jeni ^(talk) 13:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of my changes have been to add {{convert}} templates to all non-SI distances. My aim was just to implement these guidelines in UK articles to improve accessibility.

It's true that I converted references to yards to metres in a few cases, merely because I thought it unnecessary to state "yards/metres" every time when the metre is understood both in the UK and internationally. A di M's suggestion is a good compromise though. I also tried to change a few primary measurements in feet to metres, as it's consistent with the Times style guide, but it now appears they might be nominal measurements quoted in the source text(s); in any event, it's another matter.

I was originally of the mindset of Pfainuk, i.e. not to mention units when describing vague distances, so I re-phrased "a few miles" as "a short distance" or similar, but I kept getting reverted. This is why I'm asking the question here to settle the issue, and the responses so far have been very helpful. Mixsynth (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The manual is clear on the correct format for a date range within the same month e.g. "5–9 March 2009" or "March 5–9, 2009" where an unspaced endash is used. It's also clear on ranges across years e.g. "12 February 2007 – 19 April 2008". But what about if the range spans over a month in the same year: is it correct to use "5 March – 11 April 2009" and "March 5 – April 11, 2009"? This may be obvious to others but I'd like to be clear. Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

the discussion of spaced/unspaced dashes going on

Sssoul (talk

) 22:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Always remember that we are writing text that helps the reader, so when in doubt, spell it out. How about "from 5 March to 11 April 2009" or even "from 5 March 2009 to 11 April 2009"? Your meaning is then clear, and you can move on. Some kindly soul will tidy it up based on policy (as soon as that can be determined). Personally, in your case, I don't think that "5 March – 11 April 2009" is too bad.  

.

  23:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at this from the policy perspective as I want to know what AWB should be doing around date ranges. So far it's doing the right thing. Rjwilmsi 10:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that many (perhaps all) of the Wikipedia year articles (ex:

They have indeed been granted an exemption. This was part of the deal—a concession, as it were—to those who run the chronological articles and were fearing large-scale orphaning (I myself think this is hardly a concern, especially given the main-page featuring of these items daily in rotation).

Ideally, the day-month/month-day units would be bolded, not linked, in my view. That would prevent the juddering together of what is typically a linked item straight after the opening date. But this is for another day. Tony (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this exemption be described in the

Specific case

section of the guideline, perhaps something like the following:

For historical reasons, linking of Month-day dates and years in Year articles (ex: 2006) is allowed and should be maintained.

Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd only link those items which are really relevant to some anniversary widely celebrated every year (e.g., the entry in

2nd Dramaout

(formerly Army1987) 20:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed the following sentence: "Forms such as the 1700s are normally best avoided (although the difference in meaning should be noted: the 1700s is 1700–1799, whereas the 18th century is 1701–1800)."
It seems a good idea to mention the biggest problem with using the term 1700s: that it is the proper way (and the only way) to refer to the decade between the 1690s and the 1710s and such a wording can be ambiguous and very misleading. I'd also suggest changing "the 1700s is 1700–1799" to something a little less definite. Any objections to a small amendment? --86.25.239.107 (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts about a revised wording along the following lines?

"Forms such as the 1700s often refer to the first decade of a century (i.e. 1700 - 1709) rather than to the century itself. Because of this ambiguity it is normally best to avoid referring to a century in this way (although the difference in meaning should be noted: the 1700s would refer to 1700–1799, whereas the 18th century is 1701–1800)."

--86.25.238.211 (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I once did the same and was reverted; it was explained to me that, despite people searching hard, no-one had found a sourche where "1700s" meant "1700–1709" rather than "1700–1799". <sarcasm>So I reckon that the

2nd Dramaout

(formerly Army1987) 23:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's tricky in the case of the eighteenth century. People are unlikely to enumerate a single decade of three hundred years ago in the way they might speak of the 1960s and such examples will inevitably be overwhelmed by the outpourings of people who find "eighteenth century" confusing. There are numerous published examples in the case of the twentieth century though. Consider the titles and scope of the following three books: [3] [4] [5]. --86.25.239.63 (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Besides which,

WP:V isn't a strict requirement for MOS is it? This isn't part of the encyclopedia and a mere observation that something might cause confusion suffices in most cases. --86.25.239.63 (talk

) 23:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just looked and I found it very easy to find dozens of sources for the 1700s too. For a start: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]--86.25.239.63 (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Users are advised that

His Grace will make the announcement at

• • For topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. For example, in US articles they are usually United States customary units, and in the UK, they are more often metric units, with imperial units used in some contexts where they are more commonly used in the UK; it is suggested that such contexts include:
    • Miles for distances and miles per hour for speeds
    • Feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight measurements
    • Imperial pints for draught beer/cider and miles per imperial gallon for fuel economy
    • See also Metrication in the United Kingdom and the Times Online style guide under "Metric"

I propose changing this as follows (changes bolded):

• • For topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. For example, US articles usually have United States customary units. UK articles more often use metric units, but imperial units may be used in some contexts. These include:
    • Miles for distances, miles per hour for road speeds and miles per imperial gallon for fuel economy
    • Feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight measurements
    • Imperial pints for draught beer/cider
    • See also Metrication in the United Kingdom and the Times Online style guide under "Metric"

As far as I can see, these changes don't change the guidelines, but express them slightly more concisely and group all the road measurements together. Any comments or suggestions? Michael Glass (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The proposed changes to the bullet list make sense, however I am not in favor of the textual change. The proposed wording uses the verb "have" for the US and "use" for the UK, which breaks the consistent verb usage "are" in the existing wording. Consistency enhances understanding, and the proposed words don't do that. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a US/UK thing. I varied the verbs to avoid usually use. What about this?

• • For topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. For example, US articles usually have United States customary units. UK articles more often have metric units, but imperial units may be used in some contexts. These include:
    • Miles for distances, miles per hour for road speeds and miles per imperial gallon for fuel economy
    • Feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight measurements
    • Imperial pints for draught beer/cider
    • See also Metrication in the United Kingdom and the Times Online style guide under "Metric"

Michael Glass (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The suggested change is unacceptable. "Are" refers back to the units listed first. "Have" or "use" indicate they are the only units present, and would contradict the requirement to provide conversions for the first unit (with certain exceptions). --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You could employ use instead, though this requires a change to avoid usually use.

• • For topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. For example, US articles generally use United States customary units. UK articles more often use metric units, but imperial units may be used in some contexts. These include:
    • Miles for distances, miles per hour for road speeds and miles per imperial gallon for fuel economy
    • Feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight measurements
    • Imperial pints for draught beer/cider
    • See also Metrication in the United Kingdom and the Times Online style guide under "Metric"

Michael Glass (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Use" is unacceptable because it implies only the named system will appear, when in fact what should ordinarily happen is that both SI and customary/imperial will appear, the only issue being in what order. Of course, if customary differs from imperial in a particular case, it may be necessary to give all three. --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And in what order should be determined on an individual-measurement basis, not on an article basis. Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, not usually. An encyclopedia article brings together information from various sources in a cohesive way (without introducing novel interpretations). This means the disparate styles of the various sources are changed to the style of the article. The only exception would be if there was something significant about the source values (say if a source claimed that an error was due to transposed digits). --Jc3s5h (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Jc3s5hm, if you don't like have and you don't like use then what about this:

• • For topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. For example, US articles generally put United States customary units first. UK articles more often put metric units first, but imperial units may be put first in some contexts. These include:
    • Miles for distances, miles per hour for road speeds and miles per imperial gallon for fuel economy
    • Feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight measurements
    • Imperial pints for draught beer/cider
    • See also Metrication in the United Kingdom and the Times Online style guide under "Metric"

Michael Glass (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That looks OK. Jc3s5h (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Michael Glass (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about whether the usage of "billion" to denote the short scale version violates

This is in spite of the fact that these guidelines, as they are currently written, should prevent these inconsistencies from occurring. They state that for UK articles, the Times Online Style Guide should serve to determine which units should be mentioned first for any situation. Said guide is fairly clear that metric should have priority except for distances, speeds, personal height/weight, aircraft altitude, draught beer and fuel consumption. One main problem appears to be that a great many UK editors haven't read the guide, probably because the relevant section is buried in a long page on an external site, so they don't know what should be metric first and what shouldn't be.

So, I suggest that we summarise the exceptions here, in WP:UNITS, so as to clarify the policy and make conflict resolution simpler. There are only two extra exceptions to add anyway, so it wouldn't add much wording to what exists already. This way, all that would be necessary would be to cite this page in any cases of disputes over primary units in UK articles, and it would no longer require editors to dig through the lengthy page at the Times site in most instances. For example, we could amend the second bullet point under "which units to use and how to present them" along lines such as these:

For topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. For example, in US articles they are usually United States customary units, and in UK articles they are usually metric units, with the following principal exceptions:

• Miles for distances and miles per hour for speeds
• Feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight measurements
• Feet for aircraft altitude
• Imperial pints for draught beer/cider and miles per imperial gallon for fuel consumption

Obviously, the existing exceptions for nominal and defined values and non-SI specialist units in use internationally would also apply. Mixsynth (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

While I don't know how much good it would do, and I don't care so much which unit comes first as that there always be a conversion (as I've done wherever possible for Yankee Stadium (1923) and Yankee Stadium), I think the language also should add—somewhere and somehow—that for periods before metrication (1970?) the primary unit in non-scientific British & Irish contexts should be Imperial units. Dickens' characters shouldn't be carrying kilos of coal through kilometres of snow. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You are reading more absolutes into the text than were intended. The Times Style Guide and article on metrication aren't intended as absolute rules but rather suggestions. The whole point is that we leave it up to editors to determine what the most appropriate units are where an article is strongly tied to a person, time or place.

I think it's worth mentioning that the mix you observe reflects, to some extent, common usage in the UK. There are general rules, but usage also very much depends on the context, speaker and audience. We can't require all-metric or all-imperial units per

WP:NPOV

(as this would appear to endorse one side or the other in a political debate). But any other prescription seems pretty unlikely to get adopted in practice, as overly complicated rules tend to get ignored.

On Shakescene's point, I think this is what's intended by the wording For topics strongly associated with places, times or people - but perhaps that could be made clearer. Pfainuk talk 22:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Shakescene: I agree, in part. It's appropriate to give measurements of things (other than the named exceptions) in imperial first only when those things no longer exist and the only measurements available are given in pre-metrication literature. However, there's no reason why, say, Big Ben should be measured in imperial first just because it was constructed before metrication, because it still stands today, alongside dozens of other post-metrication structures, and more recent (and therefore more accurate) metric measurements of it are available.

Pfainuk: on the point of absolutes: absolutely! The point I was making wasn't that the guidelines should be treated as unimpeachable rules (note "usually" and "principal exceptions"); it was that we should highlight the key UK metric exceptions, as outlined by the style guide WP:UNITS refers to, to increase the chances that editors will actually read them.

That said, I don't necessarily agree that to require consistent use of one system or another for any particular kind of measurement is endorsing any political ideology; it's simply trying to improve the internal consistency of what is, after all, one single international encyclopaedia. I can't think of any other encyclopaedia available in the UK that randomly switches between imperial and metric for the same measurements throughout its articles so as not to appear "politically orientated". (For that matter, I can't think of any other encyclopaedia available in the UK that uses different units for different countries either, but that's another issue.)

Anyway, all I'm suggesting at this moment is just to highlight the key UK metric exceptions as in the original post to help editors decide. Would there be any objections to this in principle? Mixsynth (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you've slightly misunderstood my point on POV. My point is that it would be POV for Wikipedia as a whole to adopt either the metric system or the imperial system in principle for UK-related articles (unless it was part of a project-wide standard - including US-related articles - something that I do not believe is likely or indeed necessarily desirable). I do not consider it POV to expect UK-related articles to maintain a reasonable level of consistency in their use of units in a given context.

The MOS can very easily seem to try to bind editors to a specific way of doing things - whereas we seem to agree that it's better in this case that the best idea is to give discretion to editors. To suggest examples where imperial may be used, but not to imply that it is necessarily wrong to use imperial units in other areas as well.

I have no problem in principle to highlighting the key exceptions to metric-first, provided that it is clear that these are examples and not an exhaustive list. It may also be worth improving the wording differentiating unit choices in historically-based articles from unit choices in other articles.

So, in this case, I would suggest a wording like:

...and in the UK, they are more often metric units, with imperial units used in some contexts where they are more commonly used in the UK. It is suggested that such contexts include:

• Miles for distances and miles per hour for speeds
• Feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight measurements
• Imperial pints for draught beer/cider and miles per imperial gallon for fuel economy
• See also Metrication and the United Kingdom and the Times Style Guide

How does that sound? I've removed feet for aircraft altitude as that's already cited as the most widespread unit in the world in that context. Pfainuk talk 20:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem outlined by Mixsynth concerns the mixture of units used in measurements other than the ones listed immediately above. As sources of information vary in their use of units, there is no way that Wikipedia can be totally consistent. However, I believe that something can be done. A simple rule of thumb would be to follow the sources. If the source is Imperial first, then put the Imperial values first; if it is metric first, then that's the way to go. If the source is inconsistent or the sources are mixed, then follow the rules as outlined above, go with the majority of sources or put the SI measures first. Michael Glass (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And of course, you're well aware that I disagree with you on this: relying totally on sources to determine the appropriate unit is liable to lead to rather greater inconsistency than is seen already. Because in cases where Brits are generally consistent - such as in using miles for distance - your proposal would make Wikipedia inconsistent. You would sacrifice the existing

WP:ENGVAR

-like rule so that (unlike every other country in the world) UK-related articles would not be using the most appropriate units, but would instead use whatever units that the source used - even if that source was written for an American audience using US Customary units in inappropriate places or a continental European audience using metric units in inappropriate places.

Better for us simply to tell editors to use the most appropriate units and trust them to make an editorial judgement about what the most appropriate units are. We trust them to use the most appropriate wording, the most appropriate content, why not? Trying to force them to use whatever units are in the sources, regardless of whether that gives them the most appropriate units or not, is inappropriate. Pfainuk talk 11:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned in previous discussions, it is always possible to find sources to fit whatever agenda you have in this regard. We can easily see from Michael Glass' contibution history that he is on a crusade to metricate Wikipedia by finding sources, no matter how obscure they may be, that show measurements in metric and using them as validation for converting articles. He has also made previous attempts here to change the guidelines, sometimes against the consensus of discussion or even without any discussion at all, in order to add further justification for his changes. _wjemather^bigissue 11:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Contrary to what was claimed above, it is not always possible to find sources to change the measures from one system to another. Nor is it possible to change articles against the consensus of those who edit them most. Edits that people don't like are quickly undone, so the idea that any one editor can go on a crusade is fanciful. Many editors have no problems with following the sources; others prefer the articles to be in Imperial units, regardless of what the sources might state.

When Wiki articles have comments that are not supported by any citations, it is quite in order to check the information against the sources. Also, if there is an inconsistency between what the sources say and what the article states, it is in order to change the article to agree with the sources. If other editors have a problem with the information or the source or the order of the units, then they are free to change either or both or all of them. Michael Glass (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not always, but if you dig deep enough you can usually find a source for any measurement in any system you want.[11] Therefore, just saying "follow the source" is typically not enough: if a source uses feet and another uses metres for the same measurement, which one should I use? "Go with the majority of sources" would be more appropriate, as typically the majority of sources will use the most appropriate units. OTOH, just saying "the most appropriate units", as MOS:NUM does now, is best provided that we provide examples and pointers to more detailed discussions, as MOS:NUM does now, because a Frenchman might not be sure of which are the most appropriate units for an article about a town in Northumberland. ― 

2nd Dramaout

(formerly Army1987) 14:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)