Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 145

This is a standard which is in real-world use for many things. Nonetheless, numeric dates should not be used in general prose at all, be they YMD or the illogical US format: the date should be written out in full per

MOS:DATEFORMAT. If brevity is desirable then the YMD format may be used, which I agree with. To end up with a bizarre mixture of US and UK date formats because we don't like asking people to use sensible international standards (on an international project) is perverse and pointless. Archon 2488 (talk

) 13:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The standard may be "in real-world use for many things", but is not widely used in prose as far as I am aware, so adding it to prose in Wikipedia articles would spook readers more than the familiar DMY and MDY formats. In an ideal world, we would choose either DMY or MDY for general prose, but we don't live in an ideal world. Most of the world prefers DMY, but a large part of Wikipedia's readership (and editorship) uses MDY, and we don't want to irritate supporters of either one, so both are supported. Whichever format the reader prefers, they would still readily understand the other. Unless we cleave the Wikipedia in twain for different audiences, this is the compromise, for better or worse. —sroc 💬 22:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Delimiting (grouping of digits) currently states:

• Numbers with five or more digits to the left of the decimal point (i.e. 10,000 or greater) should be delimited into groups so they can be easily parsed, such as by using a
  decimal point
  .
• Numbers with four digits to the left of the decimal point may or may not be delimited (e.g. 1250 or 1,250).

Apparently: "Most authorities, including The Associated Press Stylebook and The Chicago Manual of Style, recommend a comma after the first digit of a four-digit number." But that's not why I'm here.

I have previously read (in a printed style guide which I no longer have, possibly from Funk & Wagnalls) that the comma may be optional for four-digit numbers but should always be included when the number is in a list with other numbers that have the comma (e.g.., numbers with five or more digits). Thus:

• $100, $500, $1,000 or $100, $500, $1000
• $100, $500, $1,000, $25,000 but not $100, $500, $1000, $25,000

This seems right to me, and need not be applied only to lists, hence this edit where I added commas to "$1,000" and "$5,000" throughout the tables for consistency with "$10,000" which was used in the same tables.

I propose to add this to the second bullet point:

• Numbers with four digits to the left of the decimal point may or may not be delimited (e.g. 1,250 or 1250). They should be delimited when used alongside other numbers that are delimited, such as in lists or tables (e.g., $500, $1,000, $5,000, $10,000 instead of $500, $1000, $5000, $10,000).

Thoughts? —sroc 💬 14:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Another interesting case: if there is a list of distances, for instance in running or speed skating, and the longest distance is the only one that has five digits, namely ten-thousand metres, then, with the current rules, there would be inconsistency in the use of the comma between the distances in the list, for just one distance. See for instance Category:Speed skating record progressions and Category:2013–14 ISU Speed Skating World Cup – World Cup 1.

Had the also been competitions in the 12km and 15km distances, then it probably would have been a clear-cut case, but when there is a single occurrence at the end of the range, should that occurrence have a comma, and should that then affect all four-digit occurrences?

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you raise categories is interesting, because each title is usually shown in isolation, but they are shown together in the category. The first one (

World record progression 10000 m speed skating men). The second one (Category:2013–14 ISU Speed Skating World Cup – World Cup 1) doesn't have any distances over four digits, so it's irrelevant. I wouldn't be particularly concerned about these cases though (i.e., insisting that every "X000 m" article be renamed "X,000 m" if it is tagged in the same category as a "XX,000 m" article. I'm really only concerned with uses within a given article, so if these events were listed in an article, they should consistently have a comma if any of them have one. —sroc 💬

14:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

For example, in an article in speed skating, I might include this list:

• 500 m speed skating
• 1,000 m speed skating
• 1,500 m speed skating
• 3,000 m speed skating
• 5,000 m speed skating
• 10,000 m speed skating

Note that I would include the commas in the list even though they do not appear in the article titles. —sroc 💬 14:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, I should have used World Cup 3 instead. See Category:2013–14 ISU Speed Skating World Cup – World Cup 3. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Same goes.

Talk:World record progression 10000 m speed skating men#Revert move to have it put back. —sroc 💬

15:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, this wouldn't be an issue if the longer events used kilometres instead, i.e.:

• 500 m speed skating
• 1000 m speed skating
• 1500 m speed skating
• 3000 m speed skating
• 5000 m speed skating
• 10 km speed skating

—sroc 💬 15:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with 10 km is, that people generally don't say "ten-kay", they say "ten-thousand", (cf. "five-thousand") in this context. That's my experience/impression at least. Btw, I have opposed your RMs. Don't take it personally. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't take it personally, I just don't understand your reasoning. MOS:NUMERAL says one thing, the article does the opposite. In fact, you previously cited MOS:NUMERAL to do the opposite of what MOS:NUMERAL says to do, and the only other editor to comment blindly said the same thing following another editor's proposal. What is your reasoning here? —sroc 💬 15:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I recognise the distinction between following MOS:NUMERAL in isolated cases with five digits (i.e., 10,000 over 10000 as in the proposed moves) and amending MOS:NUMERAL to clarify whether to delimit four-digit numbers in lists (as discussed above). These issues are not synonymous. —sroc 💬 16:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I would add that, as it seems most style guides favour a comma for four-digit numbers while some sources leave this as optional, if you want to avoid inconsistency in a series of numbers which include five-digits numbers (which style guides universally call for delimitation), then it only makes sense that the inconsistency be resolved by including the comma in the four-digit numbers (where some see it as optional) and not by omitting it from the five-digit numbers (where it is widely agreed to be required). —sroc 💬 16:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure what article – that does "the opposite" – you are referring to. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The simple solution to this (non?) problem is to always omit the comma where used as a decimal separator, reserving that (very useful) little character for where it is really needed, in the grammar or as a list separator. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@

MOS:DECIMAL does not allow the comma to be used as such anyway). This concerns delimiters (grouping of every three digits). —sroc 💬

00:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, so I used the wrong term. Where I wrote "decimal separator", please read "delimiter". My point is that the comma does not add any new information. It just adds ambiguity because "1,234" can be read either as a single number "1234" or as two numbers "1" and "234", separated by a comma. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't ambiguous. We put spaces between numbers, too (They were aged aged 3, 15, 44, 100 and 103; not They were aged aged 3,15,44,100 and 103). All style guides endorse delimiting, a convention that is widely followed in the real world. Otherwise, it becomes very hard to read large numbers (5,000,000,000 vs 5000000000). You may prefer delimiting with non-breaking spaces over commas, but that's not the issue here. —sroc 💬 08:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: This is really getting off-topic, but I'm referring to this:

Remove delimiting comma per WP:NUMERAL. I have included the men's 10,000 – or 10000 – in the RM for consistency, although the guidelines say that five digits or more should include the comma, because I think it looks a little awkward in the context.
— User:HandsomeFella 17:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The wording of the quoted section from WP:NUMERAL is the same as it was then, namely, that:

• The comma is required for five-digit numbers—despite this, you lobbied to have the comma removed (10,000 → 10000);
• The comma "may or may not be" used for four-digit numbers—not supporting change (1,000 → 1000) but remaining neutral, so it didn't really support a change in the status quo.

The change has ultimately gone from a case that did comply with WP:NUMERAL (10,000, 1,000) to a case that does not (10000, 1000). So you couldn't really say "per WP:NUMERAL" to justify the change. —sroc 💬 00:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on the use of commas in 4-digit numerals (other than always using them myself); but with regard to the OP's remembrance of a style guide's statement that they "should always be included when the number is in a list with other numbers that have the comma", I think I can offer some clarification. The style guides I'm familiar with that make such a statement are referring specifically to vertical arrangements of numerals, and the rule is to ensure that the thousands digits of 4-digit numerals align with the thousands digits of the larger numerals. Situations like

1,250,500

1500

36,400

are what they're trying to avoid, since such presentations make the interpretation (and addition) of columns of figures difficult. Deor (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've seen guides advising using commas w 4 digits to visually distinguish them from year dates.

Deor, that's a good argument, but the same would apply to spacing delimiters, and currently our templates group 4 digits together. It would be nice to be able to override that. I'm not sure it's what ISO intended either, but they're rather vague. — kwami (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, part of the introductory paragraph reads as follows:

Try to write so the text cannot be misunderstood, and take account of what is likely to be familiar to readers—the less they have to look up definitions, the easier it is to be understood.

The last clause appears to have it the wrong way around. The text needs to be clear so that the reader can understand it. The reader does not have to be understood. I also suggest a few other changes so that the text cannot be misunderstood.

Try to write so the text cannot be misunderstood, and take account of what is likely to be familiar to readers. The less that readers have to look up definitions, the easier the text will be to understand.

I believe that this is easier to understand and less likely to be misunderstood. Any comments, suggestions or improvements? Michael Glass (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is less ambiguous and grammatically better. No change in substance so it should be uncontroversial. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it's fine. Both versions are grammatically correct ("the easier it is to be understood" clearly implies "the easier it is for you to be understood by them" and there's no implication of the reverse). But it's no worse and maybe a bit better so go for it, and thanks for asking first. Herostratus (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've made the change as proposed.Michael Glass (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

An editor changed this:

the term "UTC" is not appropriate for dates before this system was adopted in 1961; Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) was used before this since the 1800s

to

the term "UTC" is not appropriate for dates before this system was adopted in 1961; Universal Time (UT) is the appropriate term for the mean time at the prime meridian (Greenwich) when it is unnecessary to specify the precise definition of the time scale

which I gather means we would formerly have said "He died at precisely 2:23

Note that the previous stable version stated:

If [sic] some cases the best solution may be to give the date and time in UTC (before approximately 1962 give UT).

No link or explanation of "UT" was given. A series of edits by Fnlayson (removing reference to "UT"), Jc3s5h (replacing "UTC" with "UT" but leaving orphaned references to "UTC"), myself (restoring "UTC" and including separate note to "GMT") and a partial reversion by Jc3s5h (here) led to the current version. This has also been the subject of discussion on my talk page (User talk:sroc#Your edit to "Manual of Style/Dates and Numbers"). —sroc 💬 09:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Timekeeping terminology has been a problem since the invention of clocks. Since around 1675 when the Royal Observatory, Greenwich was founded, the observers there kept time with days starting at noon, so Greenwich Mean Time would change from March 1 to March 2 at noon. This way the observers didn't have to change the date in the middle of their observations. Beginning in the late 1800s when the world agreed that 0° longitude would pass through the Royal Observatory, non-astronomers began to combine the term Greenwich Mean Time with a day that started at midnight. It wasn't until 1925 that the astronomers finally acquiesced to this usage. In the early 1900s the term "Universal Time" was suggested as a natural extension of the "universal day" defined at the International Meridian Conference in 1884, to replace the term Greenwich Mean Time, because some considered the noon vs. midnight issue to have made GMT hopelessly ambiguous (and it still is, for events before 1925). Universal Time is the time used by the scientific and technical community for the mean time at Greenwich, when subtle differences in definition are not important, or where the document being considered does not state the precise definition of the time scale used in the document.

UTC wasn't defined until about 1962. That was the point at which the US and UK synchronized their radio time broadcasts as closely as the technology allowed. Gradually all the major national time services in the world joined in. So the term is undefined before then. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, it looks like this edit on 28 July 2012 by Jc3s5h introduced the text: "before approximately 1962 indicate UT." Unhelpfully, no explanation for "UT" was given, nor were any pertinent examples given or links for further information. It does not appear that this edit was challenged, nor can I find any discussion on it on the talk archives. Aside from the fact that this addition has gone unquestioned, is there anything to indicate that the use of UT (rather than GMT or any other alternatives) has gained consensus?

In any case, if there is potential ambiguity with both GMT (which originally reckoned the beginning of the day at noon) and UT (which has several iterations), and if GMT was initially adopted in 1847 whereas the term Universal Time was only recommended in 1935, which is preferable for use on Wikipedia for events prior to the introduction of UTC? For that matter, what of events before either GMT or UT were adopted? Would it be better simply to use the terminology that would have been used at the time (e.g., The Supply anchored in Sydney Cove at 11:30 a.m. Sydney time on 26 January 1788 or The Armistice at Compiègne went into effect at 11 a.m. Paris time (GMT +1) on 11 November 1918)? —sroc 💬 13:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I certainly think the contemporary time used at the place discussed by the article should be the first choice. For events before the early 1800s this is likely to be apparent solar time, as would be kept by a sundial. If there are only two places discussed in an article, then the time in both places could be given when necessary. But if the article does not relate to any particular place, or if there are a multitude of places, UT could be the best choice.

I have found instances of UT (and UT1, a particular way to measure UT) being used for times before it was first recommended. For example, McCarthy and Seidelmann, TIME – From Earth Rotation to Atomic Physics (2009) on pages 54 and 55 give graphs involving UT1 beginning in 1650, and state on page 17 "the use of the term 'Greenwich Mean Time' or its abbreviation 'GMT' remains a source of confusion today..." and go on to summarize recommendations against the term "Greenwich Mean Time" and in favor of "Universal Time" since 1928.

In The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2011 pages K8-9, on reduction of time scales, the term "UT" is applied to years beginning 1620 to and including 2014.

In summary, "Universal Time" is preferable to "Greenwich Mean Time" because there have never been contradictory definitions of "Universal Time". Yes, there are different versions of UT that may differ by a few seconds, but because the term is a member of a family of terms (UT0, UT1, UT2, UTC, and a few others) using UT is a statement by the author that the distinction between the different family members does not matter for the purpose at hand. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a small error in the table of units, under the entry for the calorie: "To avoid confusion SI units (gram calorie, kilogram calorie) should be used instead." The SI unit of energy is the joule, so the current phrasing is incorrect and confusing. I propose changing this to "To avoid confusion the gram calorie or kilogram calorie should be used instead, with an equivalent in SI units (J or kJ)." Archon 2488 (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The row reads "not calorie (deprecated)" so it seems that it's trying to suggest avoiding either calorie i.e. "To avoid confusion SI units (joule, kilojoule) should be used instead." after all it is talking about science/technology articles. Of course, if the sources use calories, it would probably be best to follow suit (with a conversion to SI ... but that goes without saying, right). Jimp 08:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The table now has an inherent contradiction, since it does not actually provide for the use of joule as a unit; it provides for calorie or Calorie, but then states in the comments to use joules instead.

Group	Name	Symbol	Comment
Energy
	gram calorie small calorie	cal	SI prefixes may be used with cal but not with Cal (kilocal but not kiloCal). The rules for common nouns apply to the calorie.[clarification needed] Write 100 calories, not 100 Calories.[clarification needed]
	kilogram calorie large calorie	Cal
	not calorie (deprecated)		In science and technology calorie usually refers to the gram calorie; in dietetics it may refer to the kilogram calorie. To avoid confusion SI units (joule, kilojoule) should be used instead.

Shouldn't joule be added as a separate row in the table? Also, I'm not sure we should necessarily advocate using joules over gram calories or kilogram calories to avoid the ambiguity of what "calorie" means. How about this?

Group	Name	Symbol	Comment
Energy
	joule	J
	gram calorie small calorie	cal	SI prefixes may be used with cal but not with Cal (kilocal, but not kiloCal). The rules for common nouns apply to the calorie (100 calories), but not to Calorie (100 Calorie, not 100 Calories).
	kilogram calorie large calorie	Cal
	not calorie (deprecated)		Ambiguous whether this may refer to the gram calorie (usually in science and technology) or kilogram calorie (usually in dietetics ).

—sroc 💬 09:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The table is under the title "Specific units" by which is meant something like "units which have specific points to be made about". The joule is a plain, simple and well-behaved unit unlike the calorie with its myriad quirks and difficulties, unlike the metre with it's two different spellings, unlike the cubic centimetre with its non-standard alternative abbreviation. The table doesn't set out to list all units we're allowed to use. Thus the joule isn't there.

It seems that either you've, made some kind of typo, sroc, or whoever placed the "clarification needed" tag there was right. The line "The rules for common nouns apply to the calorie" was intended to mean that they apply to both the large and the small calorie. The link brings you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Unit names which has this to say.

Unit names are common nouns. Write them in lower case except where: common nouns take a capital; otherwise specified in the SI brochure; otherwise specified in this manual of style.

The recommendation is not to use a capital C for the large calorie (except where normally required, e.g. at the start of a sentence). I'd been ignoring this "clarification needed" tag because it seemed obvious enough to me that the word "calorie" (for a kilogram calorie) was a unit name and thus should be treated as a common noun as detailed in the link.

I agree that we shouldn't be advocating using joules over gram calories or kilogram calories to avoid the ambiguity. Are we though? It isn't even clear. First we give the rules of how to use them then we say not to. Banning the calorie would be akin to banning the foot or pound. However, it may be worth noting that conversions to SI are helpful here.

Group	Name	Symbol	Comment
Energy
	gram calorie small calorie	cal	SI prefixes may be used with the gram calorie but not with the kilogram calorie. The term kilocalorie always refers to 1,000 gram calories. kilocal is used but kiloCal is not. The rules for common nouns apply to the both the gram and kilogram calorie. Use lower case for either except where common nouns take a capital. Write 100 calories not 100 Calories. Whether to use gram or kilogram calories is context- dependent. In science and technology calorie usually refers to the gram calorie In dietetics calorie may refer to the kilogram calorie. A conversion to SI units (joule, kilojoule, etc.) is useful for avoiding ambiguity.
	kilogram calorie large calorie	Cal

Jimp 10:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no benefit in including the terms "small calorie" and "large calorie". These are not needed and can be deprecated. Use of "gram calorie" and "kilogram calorie" should be with a link to a definition. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I like the last proposed version of the table above. It's still useful to mention to terms "small calorie" and "large calorie" because they're occasionally encountered, and it makes sense to include them for the sake of completeness. An equivalent in J or kJ should always be provided to any number in (k)cal. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jimp:

'The table is under the title "Specific units" by which is meant something like "units which have specific points to be made about".' Thanks for the clarification. This wasn't evident to me, since the table contains many other entries that have no special comments. Perhaps an introductory line above the table would help.

'The line "The rules for common nouns apply to the calorie" was intended to mean that they apply to both the large and the small calorie.' That's interesting because the last stable version of the table before EEng recently overhauled it said this in relation to kilogram calorie: "The regular rules for common nouns apply to the calorie. Write 100 calories not 100 Calories." No such comment was made in relation to gram calorie, so presumably it did not apply. This revision seems to materially change the status quo to say that this applies to both.

'I agree that we shouldn't be advocating using joules over gram calories or kilogram calories to avoid the ambiguity. Are we though?' The previous version that I referred to in my earlier comment said, in relation to calorie: "To avoid confusion SI units (joule, kilojoule) should be used instead." So yes, this explicitly said to use joules, not giving gram calories or kilogram calories as acceptable alternatives. The confusion is compounded by the fact that the table is not a complete list and thus does not list joule as a unit.

Additional comments regarding the revised table: please spell out "gram calorie and kilogram calorie", not "gram and kilogram calorie", to avoid confusion with "gram"; it would also be useful to clarify that "kilocal" is the abbreviation for "kilocalorie" (as distinct from "kilogram calorie"), assuming this is correct; it would also be useful to retain the explicit reference that "calorie" should not be used on its own;

kilogram calorie should be wikilinked (to existing redirects to calorie

, which details their use, not redlinks to unnecessary "definition of… articles"); the rowspan parameterss were messed up.

—sroc 💬 13:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just noticed another contradiction. Calorie has been deprecated, but the table includes this example: "Write 100 calories not 100 Calories." Should this be: "Write 100 kilogram calories, not 100 kilogram Calories"? Or does the deprecation mean: "Specify gram calorie or kilogram calorie initially, then calorie alone can be used as shorthand for the same term provided the intended meaning is clear"? —sroc 💬 13:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume that, when the usage is obvious (e.g. in dietetics, the kilogram calorie is the normal unit) then "calorie" may be used for brevity. Still, an equivalent in kilojoules should always be provided, which is unambiguous. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Does providing providing a conversion in joules really help to disambiguate between gram calorie and kilogram calorie? Doesn't this rely on the reader knowing what the conversion rates are and performing the calculation each time? Actually stating the full term (at least the first time) would obviously be a better way to clarify this. —sroc 💬 22:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The gram calorie would be converted to joules, and the kilogram calorie would be converted to kilojoules, so the order of magnitude would clarify things on its own. But I agree that for disambiguation, the unit name should be given in full the first time: articles with dietetic information should state "kilocalories" on the first use, and "kcal" subsequently. The kilogram calorie is never used with prefixes, so this is unambiguous (food labels, at least in Europe, commonly use "kcal" anyway). Archon 2488 (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

But "kcal" isn't mentioned in the table at all! Should the table give the symbol for kilogram calorie as "Cal or kcal"? —sroc 💬 22:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a difference between kilocalorie (given in the table as kilocal) and kilogram calorie (stated in calorie as "equal to 1000 small calories or one kilocalorie" and given as kcal)? —sroc 💬

The kcal and Cal are equivalent by definition, so the distinction is largely academic. In the former case, the "calorie" is defined with respect to one gram of water, then multiplied by 1000. In the latter case, the "calorie" is definied with respect to one kilogram of water. This isn't relevant to the normal use of the units, and "kcal" is unambiguous (it's also the unit that people normally mean when they say "calorie"). Archon 2488 (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. In other words, "kcal" = "kilocal" = "kilogram calorie". I'm working on simplifying and clarifying this section: see User:sroc/sandbox#Special units. How does this look? —sroc 💬 23:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• A side comment: While I've spend a good deal of time here in recent months, in the past 6 weeks for so I just haven't been able to, and likely won't again for a while. I do want to say, though, that with the exception of a few limited points on which explicit, separate discussions were opened, it was only my intention to improve the presentation of the guidelines as they were, not to change them (though that wasn't always easy, since in many cases the guidelines seemed self-inconsistent). If something did change, it was inadvertent. Keep up the good work, everyone. EEng (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I was not making a case for a "definition of ..." article. I just meant there is little point in linking to

gram calorie unless that article contains a definition of "gram calorie". Dondervogel 2 (talk

) 22:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Dondervogel 2:

Well, you did write 'Use of "

Redlinks

encourage editors to create those missing pages.

Currently,

kilogram calorie both redirect to calorie

, which begins with this (footnotes omitted):

The name calorie is used for two

units of energy

.

• The small calorie or gram calorie (symbol: cal) is the approximate amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius.
• The large calorie, kilogram calorie, dietary calorie, nutritionist's calorie, nutritional calorie, Calorie (capital C) or food calorie (symbol: Cal, equiv: kcal) is approximately the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius. The large calorie is thus equal to 1000 small calories or one kilocalorie (symbol: kcal).

The article also includes sections on "Precise definitions" and "Usage". This seems to pretty well cover it, but if you feel that information is deficient, you can go ahead and edit that article. —sroc 💬 22:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The section with the definitions in it (which is indeed entitled Precise definitions) mentions neither the gram calorie nor the kilogram calorie. So linking to that article in its present form for a definition is useless. I will take a look to see if it can be improved but will not spend time on it I do not have. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal made at calorie. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Are date ranges in the form Mmmm dd – Mmmm dd, YYYY (January 27 – February 3, 1986 or Jan 27 – Feb 3, 1986) permissible under

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It already does:

The Ghent Incursion (March 1822 – January 1, 1823) was ended by the New Year's Treaty.

—sroc 💬 11:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't thinking. That was obviously after they slashed the number of days in March. (What an odd mix of date formats, though.) —sroc 💬 11:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I think the examples you provided are perfectly acceptable. It's a shame that the examples given in WP:DATERANGE ("They travelled June 3 – August 18 of that year;  They travelled 3 June – 18 August") do not include actual years. I don't think we necessarily need additional examples (

WP:CREEP), but perhaps we could revise these examples (They travelled June 3 – August 18, 2001;  They travelled 3 June – 18 August 2001) for the sake of clarity? —sroc 💬

11:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the answer should be yes, and we should probably put them in there explicitly. People do point to the absence of an explicit statement about a type of date range as evidence that it is not permitted.

I'm thinking that 12 March – 14 April 1986 would also be acceptable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done The "between months in the same year" case is already there, titled "between days in different months", and I have updated it to include years as suggested above. —sroc 💬 22:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose the article be marked with

Due to direct conflict with these articles, especially in the portion

1. The articles listed should be updated to conform with this page or have sections or some indication/link of exception when being used internally on Wikipedia
2. This MoS page be updated to conform to the writing styles described within the listed articles, and all pages be maintained uniformly as a group

Particular instances of direct contradiction are abundant, so I won't list them all here. Thoughts? Penitence (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not tag MOS as contradicting articles. MOS is not an article; it is a project page. Specifically, it is our Manual of Style, and we can adopt whatever style we choose, regardless of whether it is reflected in individual encyclopedic articles. Nonetheless, if you have any suggestions on how to improve either MOS or individual articles, feel free to propose them. —sroc 💬 03:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I second sroc above. This is not an article (I believe the contradict template is intended to be used only in the article namespace, in any case); it is a set of instructions and recommendations addressed to Wikipedia editors. It's not intended to be a neutral overview of the topics it addresses, but rather a guide to writing articles in an appropriate style. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The articles describe how things are done out there. The MOS prescribes how things are to be done in here. They may say different things but this cannot be called a contradiction since they're talking about different things. Jimp 07:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! I'm having a little discussion on

I am that user who is trying to enforce the part of the MOS that says: "Context determines whether the 12- or 24-hour clock is used; in both, colons separate hours, minutes and seconds (e.g. 1:38:09 pm or 13:38:09)." I dont think that IAR nor that there is a common sense exception here since the fix is so easy to apply to all of the articles (a simple search and replace using an automated program 24 times should suffice). Also i dont believe that just because some random agencies do not use the colon in some of their products that we should ignore our own style guidelines in this case.Jason Rees (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to be a broken record, but I don't think it's helpful for editors to be "enforcers" of MOS. MOS is a guideline for what usually works well and a way to reduce wasteful argument and reinvention of the wheel. But -- and here's the broken record again -- the test is what best serves the reader's understanding, not how closely we can hew to a mindless consistency. EEng (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's why I welcome some outside opinions, as I think I laid out a decent rationale for a common sense exception. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

On principle, I agree with

MOS:TIME, applies regardless of the style used by others. I would prefer consistency within Wikipedia over a different style in one Wikiproject (consistent with outside use) that is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. To paraphrase Hurricanehink, it is more important to be consistent with ourselves than with others. —sroc 💬

03:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth sroc, we're not the only one who uses UTC this way. Tornadoes of 2009 uses it without the colon, as does December 2000 nor'easter, so it's other weather articles than just hurricanes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This then leads to issues where you have an article, say, on a plane that crashed in bad weather: articles on aviation would use one format while articles on tornados use another, resulting in conflict when discussing the tornado that caused the plane crash. —sroc 💬 04:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Consistency (such as among various articles) is not its own reward; instead the question, as always, should be "What best serves the reader's understanding?" By the reader we mean the nonspecialist, non-stormchasing reader, not H-hink's "we". And that general reader will find the 4-digits-run-together format odd. The only scenario in which I could see adopting this format for a particular article would be one in which, for example, a large amount of external material (quotations, images) also use it, so that -- maybe -- adopting that format for the text would make for smoother reading. Otherwise, no. EEng (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure I agree. There's never been any problems or complaints using UTC as it is, and surely MOS should reflect what we actually do. Furthermore, I think it might be somewhat helpful having UTC time look different from normal time, to indicate it's not a typical time zone, that it's converted. For hurricanes, for example, one might cross the international date line and thus change a day in local time, so it's useful using UTC to indicate a consistent timing, thus a slightly different format is useful. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong that no one's complained about HHMM -- you're hearing those complaints here and now. And no, MOS' purpose isn't passive documentation of "what we actually do", but rather to give guidance on good ways of doing things (which may, or may not, be the same thing). No normal reader will understand that HHMM signals a UTC time; the way to signal that is to write "01:45 UTC". Your example of crossing the date line is an argument only for expressing time in UTC, which no one is disputing. EEng (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with EEng. It is not for MOS to reflect what Wikipedia already does (warts and all) but to reflect what we should do that best serves the reader. It aids the reader to use a format that is readily understandable and commonplace (e.g., HH:MM), not a format that is invented and used by some technical organisations (e.g., HHMM) that layperson readers are less likely to be familiar with. UTC is a time zone (or at least it acts as one as far as the non-expert reader is concerned) and it does not serve the reader to format times in UTC differently from times in other time zones. —sroc 💬 23:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I love you, sroc. Did I ever tell you that? EEng (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• I favor making things within Wikipedia as consistent as possible. The HH:MM format is well known as a format for time and any other format requires an adjustment for the reader. If I were writing for the weather agencies, I'd use their style, but for a general audience, I'd follow the standard used through the rest of Wikipedia. SchreiberBike talk 01:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Though we are in agreement that HHMM isn't appropriate, I repeat that I don't agree that WP should be "as consistent as possible", because consistency is not a goal, or virtue, in and of itself. It's a general principle which, usually, aids the reader's understanding, all else being equal. But if the reader's understanding is best served by being inconsistent in some cases, then that's what we should do. EEng (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that consistency is a goal which can be overridden by other goals, such as intelligibility and fidelity to real-life use. But in this case, as in most others, intelligibility is best served by using standard, clear and rational formats to communicate information. It makes sense to stick with the ISO colon notation, and we gain nothing by removing the colon other than making times harder to read. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're repeating back to me, who agree with you, exactly what I said. EEng (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel that "noon," "midnight," "12 pm," and "12 am," should be used interchangeably, as it looks out of place in a table, for example:
3:30 pm
6:00 pm
Noon
8:00 pm
10:00 am
etc.
Should the Manual allow this? Shorthand date formats are allowed, and I have seen several templates contain 12 pm, particularly on sports-related pages with tables concerning game/match results. Would this also fall under

What does it mean to say that they should be used interchangeably? There's an ambiguity here that can only really be avoided by using the 24-hour clock, but the existing guidance on this is vague. I have asked for clarification on this point in a separate section on this page. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

By "interchangeably," I mean that both "noon" and "12 pm" could be used. Ben^Yes? 00:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, noon and midnight are not interchangeable, nor are 12 pm and 12 am, as these refer to different times of day. The guidance at

MOS:TIME ("Use noon and midnight rather than 12 pm and 12 am; whether midnight refers to the start or the end of a date will need to be specified unless it is clear from the context") is presumably because some people confuse 12 pm (i.e., noon) and 12 am (i.e., midnight). No such issue arises when using 24-hour time. —sroc 💬

01:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Problem is that there's no universally-agreed convention that they mean the same thing. "am/pm" is fundamentally ambiguous when it comes to the hour 12; you can never be sure, without contextual information, whether "12 pm" means noon or midnight. There's another ambiguity: does "midnight Saturday" mean midnight at the end of Saturday, or at the beginning? With the 24-hour clock it's all completely unambiguous: 12:00 is always noon, Saturday 00:00 is the beginning of Saturday and Saturday 24:00 is the end of Saturday. Which is why I think the 24-hour clock is generally preferable. Archon 2488 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I know noon and midnight aren't interchangeable, but noon is the same thing as 12 pm, as well as 1200. Personally, I do prefer the 24-hour time format, but I'm saying that 12 pm should be allowed as an equivalent alternative to Noon, so that if there is a list of times in a table, for example, it doesn't stand out, or as otherwise appropriate within the context. Because the issue of people confusing 12 am against 12 pm seems to be apparent, if it were allowed, there could be an endnote stating that 12 pm/12 am should only be used where brevity is required, in the case of tables, for example, otherwise, noon should be used. This is seen in the

date formats rules. Ben^Yes?

01:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

'Problem is that there's no universally-agreed convention that they mean the same thing. "am/pm" is fundamentally ambiguous when it comes to the hour 12; you can never be sure, without contextual information, whether "12 pm" means noon or midnight.' Other than by mistake, who uses "12 pm" to mean "midnight" or "12 am" to mean "noon"? Are there any cultures that do this? I've never heard of such a convention. —sroc 💬 04:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I personally find it confusing, probably because I'm trying to apply too much logic to it. Quoting from 12-hour clock: "a.m. (from the Latin ante meridiem, meaning 'before midday') and p.m. (post meridiem, 'after midday')". Noon and midnight are neither before nor after midday. Noon is midday and midnight is the opposite. There's a whole section at 12-hour clock#Confusion at noon and midnight which goes on in the same vein. SchreiberBike talk 05:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was not aware that Japanese legal convention and former advice from the US Government Printing Office endorsed "12 am" for noon and "12 pm" for midnight, but there you go. These are, of course, not strictly relevant to current practice in the English language, but if consensus is that these "12 am" and "12 pm" are to be avoided because of the potential for confusion, then so be it.

By the way, I don't think the idea of making exceptions for confined spaces (as with the date format table) is a good idea in general when there is not a significant problem, otherwise it might be perceived as

instruction creep. This is also a different situation because YYYY-MM-DD date formats are clear, albeit uncommonly used in English, so there is no harm in using them in certain contexts without clarification; conversely, "12 am" and "12 pm" apparently are ambiguous (at least to some people) so having a footnote in MOS is not going to clarify what these terms mean for someone encountering them in an article (unless you also include a footnote in the tables explaining what these times mean—in which case it's too much effort to avoid simply using unambiguous terms such as "midnight" or "noon" in the first place). —sroc 💬

08:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that we should stick to disallowing "12 am" and "12 pm". There may be no convention for "12 pm" to mean "midnight" or "12 am" to mean "noon", some follow the opposite convention but it's not universally-agreed-upon. Logic, though, would have "12 am" and "12 pm" both mean "midnight" (at the start and the end of the day respectively, i.e. "12:00 am" ≡ "00:00" and "12:00 pm" ≡ "24:00") since midnight is as much before noon as it is after (noon is neither before nor after itself). The best convention, in my opinion, would be this (along with having the usual stuff like midday's being called "12 noon" and using "12 midnight" for midnight without specifying the day (or between the days)). It follows the logical implication of what "am" and "pm" stand for and solves the midnight problem too but, of course, we couldn't use it here since it's not universally accepted either (I just made it up). Without universal agreement on what "12 pm" and "12 am" are supposed to mean, though, it's best we avoid them. Jimp 07:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that there is no convention. As long as I can remember, in the U.S. anyway, 12 p.m. has been noon and 12 a.m. has been midnight. As a child, I might have been confused about it for a while, but it was one of those things you just had to memorize, like which way is left. In the current computer-literate world, it's even more clearly understood, since any software that (unfortunately) uses an AM/PM format for display must use this convention to get it right. Can someone point to a current source where the convention is inverted?

Having said that, I think "noon" or "midnight" are more clear, though the latter probably should follow the AP style of including the dates being straddled. But back to what I think the original poster's point was – in a table that uses a.m./p.m. times, I think it "looks better" to use "12 p.m." than "noon". I just don't know if it's worth trading looks for possible ambiguity, however slight I may think that possibility is. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A US convention is not a universal convention (although I have seen the convention in use here too). As for the table/list above we could go for this.

 3:30 pm

 6:00 pm

12:00 noon

 8:00 pm

10:00 am

Jimp 09:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable proposal. Nonetheless, whenever you use the 12-hour clock, there's always more information for the reader to parse before they can be sure what is going on (be it contextual information or even the symbols "am" and "pm" after the time). The ambiguity arises because noon/midnight are neither in the am nor the pm period, so sometime you'll come across things like 11:59 pm to avoid the confusion. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

While "12 noon" looks OK above, and doesn't result in too much extra width, "12 midnight" is somewhat ugly, either by being too wide or wrapping. How about suggesting that times be shown in 24-hour format (HH:mm, with leading zero) unless 12-hour is necessary for some reason? This has the added advantage of not requiring a hidden value to sort correctly. While people may have been resistant to this format a couple generations ago, many countries now routinely use 24-hour format in travel and broadcast information and, while people may not use it routinely when speaking, I think a majority of readers can deal with it when needed. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Many people in many countries have not adjusted to 24-hour times, so there's no need to foist it on editors as a blanket requirement. The choice between 12- and 24-hour times may be determined by editors based on, for example, the format commonly used in the country that is the primary subject of the article. For example, the US broadly uses 12-hour time and there may be many readers are not as familiar with 24-hour times or would have to do mental arithmetic every time, particularly for articles on a US subject. We shouldn't force all editors to use 24-hour times just because 12-hour times might look ugly in some cases. —sroc 💬 22:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, how many adults don't understand the 24-hour clock? It disturbs me somewhat to think that there are people who've been living on Earth for several decades who haven't bothered to learn a basic numeracy skill. There are limits to how much we should condescend to readers. Nonetheless, in the case of (say) US-related articles, if it's the time format predominantly used in the country, then it should be permissible for it to be used in articles per the usual Wikipedia rules for this sort of thing. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• How about waiting until this issue has come up as an actual problem among actual editors in an actual article, and see if how they work it out? And then, if it comes up in another article, and another, and another, then -- in light of all that experience -- we might think about whether MOS' usefulness will be enhanced by adding something on this, instead of being
  WP:CREEP-bloated in advance of any indicated need. EEng (talk
  ) 18:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

An older edition of the Chicago Manual of Style indicated 12 AM was noon and 12 PM was midnight, although the current 16th edition (p.478) states "Except in the 24 hour system numbers should never be used to express noon or midnight (except, informally, in an expression like twelve o'clock at night)." [Cross reference omitted.] Chicago justifies this with the same ambiguity concerns expressed in this thread. I have seen articles about radio programs where I tried to fix the ambiguity, but had to give up because I just couldn't figure out whether noon or midnight was intended. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

is it me, or have you all gone a little mad? Instead of discussing the hour, think of it in minutes. 11:58am, 11:59am, 12:00, 12:01pm, 12:02pm

The meridian IS 12:00 noon, the middle of the day.

12:00 is neither AM nor PM, one is the middle of the day, one the change from this day to the next. Technically neither of them exists - is midnight part of today, tomorrow or yesterday?. To distinguish which one we mean, people use the am/pm designator for the minutes in the hour. In the afternoon the hour 12 is pm, and at night the 12 hour is am.

We used to say "12 midnight" and "12 noon", which worked quite well. Perhaps we just need to teach children better. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly justifiable to allow "12pm" or "12:00pm" because this is how the time is written in the real world. Perhaps its a corruption of the technological age dividing all times into the binary "AM" or "PM. Perhaps there is a logical argument that noon is a moment that lasts less than a minute, less than a second even (e.g., 11:59:58am → 11:59:59am → noon moment → 12:00:00pm → 12:00:01pm) to justify it. —sroc 💬 23:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

A footnote in the policy refers to the Times Style Guide, but the link only goes to the general page. This is a more specific link (which can only be accessed by subscription): [9] The part that is accessible to non subscribers reads in part:

One of the longest entries in the Times Style Guide is headed, simply, “metric”. The heading is more or less the only simple thing in the entry, as is hinted at in the opening advice: “The Times should keep abreast of the trend in the UK to move gradually towards all-metric use, but given the wide age range and geographical distribution of our readers, some continuing use of imperial measurements is necessary.”

I propose replacing the general link with this more specific link. Any comments, criticisms or concerns? Michael Glass (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

UK Metrication again? Does anyone have the appetite to discuss this again? Drop the

WP:STICK please. Wee Curry Monster talk

14:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A word of advice after McCartney: Listen to What the Monster Said. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Steady on guys, he only asked a reasonable question. For me, the present link just leads to the Times Online main page, which is of no relevance whatever, so certainly the other proposed link would be an improvement (though I would question whether we need such a link at all - isn't this page supposed to be Wikipedia's own style guide?) W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this has become somewhat of a toxic issue. Best not to discuss again until we have something of substance to discuss. I don't think the Times reference is massively relevant, but it makes little difference either way. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the others. I think W. P. Uzer would see why we say this if s/he had seen as much of this as the rest of us had.

I have changed the section heading to make it more descriptive. Kahastok talk 18:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As much of what? Editors pointing out deficiencies in the guideline and ways they might be improved? Sounds to be something we ought to encourage rather. What I have seen far too much of on Wikipedia is people bullying to preserve a particular version of a page or section, and using irrelevant arguments or personal insults (coupled with reverts, if necessary) to suppress any criticism of that version, even when entirely well-founded. Seems, unfortunately, that the same thing is happening here. If you're tired of discussing a particular issue (though I can't believe this link has really been the subject of a great deal of discussion before this), then you have a simple solution - let others discuss it while you go and do something else that interests you. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe the last main discussion on the link to The Times Style Guide was at

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 142#The Times style guide link

To bring you up to speed, the issues I remember discussing (there or, possibly, elsewhere) were:

1. whether we should refer editors to somebody else's style guide at all (as opposed to referencing article sources for verification of statements)
2. whether we should retain a dead link that was automatically redirected to today's news at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/ (which currently features the situation in Ukraine)
3. whether we should refer editors to an online style guide that is no longer made freely available online, having been first placed behind a paywall and then, apparently removed (I do not know the current status of the online version of the style guide.)
4. whether it would be appropriate to point readers to an unauthorized archived version of copyright material since placed behind a paywall
5. whether the text of this section of the archived page was the same as the printed version (ISBN: 0007145055; it is).
6. whether the text of the style guide was actually available behind the paywall at the address given (apparently, it wasn't).

If anyone has more up-to-date information, please provide it. The current discussion, as I understand it, seems to be about whether to replace the deadlink with a link not to any version of the style guide but to Rose Wild's comment on the style guide – most of that comment being behind a paywall – in the Feedback section. It doesn't look particularly useful to me, though it is, of course, much better than a link to the front page, which currently has absolutely nothing about imperial units (unless you are thinking of Russian military units in Ukraine!). --Boson (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The proposal was to replace a poor link with a better link. The offensive comments above reflect badly on those who made them. At least W. P. Uzer actually read and understood what I proposed. However, as he questioned the relevance of having the link at all there is no point in pursuing the matter any further. Michael Glass (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• There's no practical difference between "useless" and "next to useless". ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone oppose removing the link? --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a style guide to follow is necessary to stop the continuous gaming of the system by those whose editing follows an agenda to promote one system of units over another. I would strongly oppose removal of a guideline as it will promote edit warring among the idiots arguing the superiority of one systen over another, while the rest of us would just like to edit in peace. If you had seen the sheer stupidity of the arguments between the different camps you wouldn't even think of suggesting it. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see how that link to the Times solves the problem you evoked. The links (old and new) are pretty pointless and should be removed. Everything of use is behind a paywall, so it can still be gamed unless you want us all to subscribe to a copy to be able to say for sure something is definitive per the guide. The alternative is to read The Times online or keep a recent paper version handy to reverse engineer their usage of their different measures. The only ironclad way is to stipulate either Imperial only or metric only, but not many will agree to that. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Still available via the wayback macine. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• But that's a bit sad, like refusing to let go a dearly departed loved one... It will have undoubtedly changed since that version of the style guide was published, and it will change again for sure three years from now. And as we're not slaves to external style guides, let's take it off the pedestal. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I would strongly support removing the link completely. For one thing, The Times Style Guide, contradicts our own recommendations and thus contributes to the confusion and ill-feeling. The reference does nothing to stop any alleged "continuous gaming of the system". Can someone actually please confirm whether there any style guidelines somewhere behind that paywall? They were put behind a paywall, but my understanding was that they had since been removed altogether. Even if they have been put back again, it would be pretty pointless pointing editors to an address and telling them to follow the advice given there when most people do not have access – even if it did not contradict our own guidelines. --Boson (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedians like sources. Making note of the fact that we are basing our guidance on the style guide of the Times (loosely - with common sense and Wikipedia norms applied), a source that is trying to do pretty much exactly the same thing as we are doing, is fundamentally useful both to the user of the guide and to us as editors. In both cases it demonstrates that the compromise that we have is not some made-up nonsense but an accurate reflection of usage as it stands, based on an existing source that does the same thing.

The last time we did the whole UK units thing wasn't Boson's link. It was this, two weeks ago. With the same OP. Do we really have to do it over and over at this frequency? I don't see we should. But it is fact that we have people continually bringing this up to push a POV on this point, and when they do it is very useful to have an outside point of reference that we can point at and say, this is what someone else has done when doing exactly what we're trying to do, this is what we've agreed to base this advice on, this is an accurate approximation of British usage. I would strongly oppose removing it on that basis. Kahastok talk 19:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you are lumping too many things together, which is a familiar problem with previous discussions on the subject of imperial units.

We need to stick to one thing at a time, and this issue (removal of the Times link, in case anyone's forgotten) is very simple. As I noted, I was replying to "I can't believe this link has really been the subject of a great deal of discussion before this", and I believe my link does refer to the last "great deal of discussion" on the (dead) link to the Times style guide.

I do not agree that The Times is " doing exactly what we're trying to do", unless you define that in such broad terms as to be practically useless. The Times is a quintessentially British newspaper writing for a largely British readership. It is therefore quite appropriate for them to recommend using miles for all distances globally. We do not do this, so recommending following the Times style merely adds to the confusion. You write "loosely - with common sense and Wikipedia norms applied" but, to make any sense, that must actually be taken to mean "so loosely as to interpret it as stating something completely different".

We do - as you say – like sources, but I think you may be conflating citations (which are used merely to verify statements or quotations) and links to rules that editors need to read and observe (or, in this case: read and observe/ignore unspecified parts of). --Boson (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The Times also uses mdy dates. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The Times certainly trying to approximate modern British usage. And I think it is pretty obvious how the MOS reflects it. You point out that it recommends miles for distances globally. Do you really think that people are going to say, ah, the guide suggests we refer to the Times for UK-related articles, and the Times says use miles globally, so we'll go away and convert random non-UK-related articles.

We all know that within weeks of any removal of the Times, the usual suspects are going to show up and announce that we made the whole thing up and we should adopt source-based units or "can is not must" or some other proxy for the usual POV rubbish. Yes, there's a difference between an article and an MOS, but the reasons why we have sourcing in articles apply here.

There seems to be a bizarre assumption here that the Times must either be followed religiously or ignored entirely. The notion that the advice may be based on it, but with acceptance for the differences between the Times and Wikipedia, seems not to have been understood. That is what happened. We looked at it, adapted it to our needs, and adopted the adaptation. It's useful to have the source from which it was based in order to show where it came from. Kahastok talk 18:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What does The Times recommend?

I think the above discussion may suffer from people not being aware of what The Times Style and Usage Guide (or the online copy) actually says. I think fair use would permit large chunks of the content concerning metric/imperial measurements to be quoted verbatim on the talk page for the purpose of critical analysis, but we are not permitted to lift large amounts for our own manual of style, which provides advice rather than critical analysis. So perhaps we can first state what the style guide says in our own words. It might make sense to actually include some of the result in the MoS – after amending the parts that contradict what we currently recommend.

As I understand it The Times Style and Usage Guide contains the recommendations or prescriptions presented below (in the section " Contents of The Times Style and Usage Guide). Please comment here, if you think I have got it wrong. --Boson (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Contents of The Times Style and Usage Guide

General use of metric measurements

1. Where possible, avoid mixing metric and imperial in the same article. This is a goal, not a total prohibition.
2. Generally use metric measurements and give imperial measurements in parentheses.
3. Use of metric measures applies explicitly to temperatures.
4. Use of metric measures applies explicitly to areas, including hectares and square metres. However square kilometres should be avoided.

Exceptions to the general use of metric measurements

1. Distances for all locations worldwide should be given in miles. For all countries other than the UK and the US a conversion into kilometres should be provided on the first use (but not for the UK and the US).
2. In the UK and the US all speeds should be given in mph (no conversion). For all other countries, speeds should be given in mph first, but also converted into km/h on first use.
3. Personal height and weight should be given in feet and inches and in stones and pounds respectively (with conversion into metres and kilograms respectively).
4. Aircraft altitudes should be given in feet; conversion to metric (in parentheses) is permitted but not necessary.
5. Mountain heights should be given first in metric units (feet in parentheses).

   Does anyone else see a problem here, in regard the aircraft-mountain interface? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

6. Volumes should be given in metric units with the exception of pints of beer and cider.
7. Milk is sold in pint bottles and litre containers (but no explicit recommendation).
8. Use metric (i.e. litres) for petrol and fuel. Conversion is not required.
9. Fuel consumption should be given in miles per gallon.

For the following topics the "overwhelming preference" is for metric

• sport
• foreign
• engineering
• scientific
• foodstuffs and liquids in cookery

- - - end of contents - - -

Comment on the guidelines as presented above

First I would like to thank Boson for putting up this summary of the Times Style Guide. Just having this summary available is very helpful, for it shows the striking similarities and the striking differences between the Times and MOSNUM's recommendations. Here are a few that I believe we could adopt for UK articles:

• A statement that the UK is slowly transitioning to the metric system may be of value.
• Either stating that milk is sold in pint bottles and litre containers, or, better, removing the item entirely.
• As well as stating that engineering and scientific articles are metric, this should be extended to sports, where appropriate.

On the other hand, there are some recommendations that we would not take up, like having speeds only in MPH, avoiding the use of square kilometres or permitting aircraft altitudes just in feet. Michael Glass (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the link to The Times Style Guide

• Glad to see this issue is now being discussed on its merits, but can we do one simple thing right away - everyone seems to agree that the present "link" serves no purpose as it doesn't take you anywhere near any Times Style Guide, so is just going to annoy people who (like me) click on it and wonder WTF. If there is no immediate consensus on whether and what link should replace it, would there be any objection to just removing the present link (without altering the overlying text, although I don't particularly see why the Times guide should be singled out - are other such guides not also available?) W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal. My rationale above. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal of the dead link as proposed by W. P. Uzer. Michael Glass (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal of the link as proposed by W. P. Uzer (per my detailed explanation above and without prejudice to later removal of the explicit verbal reference to The Times Style Guide). --Boson (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
    • PS: Oppose temporary link to the archived copy because it is unnecessary and would possibly violate
      copyright policy. --Boson (talk
      ) 13:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support replacement with the archived version in the Wayback Machine that Wee Curry Monster has mentioned. As for directing people to the Times style guide, since certain Times style guidelines contradict Wikipedia's own ones, as Boston and Michael Glass have demonstrated above, we should explicitly say which parts of the Times guide should be used when editing Wikipedia; or better, we should have our own guideline that is sufficient for all Wikipedia articles, and use the Times, Oxford and/or other relevant guidelines as sources. But this is a separate issue from removing or replacing a dead link. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    WP:MOSNUM. The subject of UK units is constantly being raised by that editor, in almost all cases arguing over trivia in an effort to portray the UK as more metric than it is. If that editor wants UK articles to go down the wholly metric route, raise an RFC and convince the community on the basis of the strength of their argument. But the method adopted of a war of attrition raising the topic ad nauseum to try and chip away at the policy guidelines is simply irritating and is entrenching attitudes against them. We need a guideline because editors like this will game the system, they have a track record of gaming the system and using wikilawyering to edit against consensus. I oppose any weakening of policy recommendations because experience over a number of years demonstrates they simply cannot be trusted to edit in line with policy and consensus and the slightest chink in policy will be exploited to edit in a manner that is disruptive and leading to numerous edit wars. Wee Curry Monster talk
    12:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

WCM has apparently forgotten his own chequered history on Wikipedia. In any case, his ad hominem attack is irrelevant to the question at issue, which is whether or not to remove a dead link. Michael Glass (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• • • @Wee Curry Monster:But none of the above argumentation indicates, suggests or explains how or why the link is of any practical use except as some symbolic line in the sand against the evil and devious Mr. Glass. The biggest problems with it have been stated above; plus the link is nearly ten years old and is surely obsolete. It's you lot that are hanging on to nostalgia. Please deal with the substance and come to 2014. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Historically, the Times style guide was chosen as it best represented UK usage and still does. Its a style guide adopted as best approximating appropriate use in the UK. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
        • It has nothing to do with nostalgia and it is not obsolete, the UK has not fundamentally changed in the last ten years in this area. As I have repeatedly pointed out, as a professional engineer I use the metric system exclusively and as an engineer I would prefer to see its use. The reason I don't endorse wholesale metrication of UK metric articles on wikipedia is simply because we should reflect unit choices that makes articles easier for readers to understand, which in certain limited circumstances means we give preference to the unit most commonly used. If you want it to be different, convince other editors to change policy but being patronising about it won't help your case. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
          • My comment was addressing the use of the link as a function of time. Sure some things change and others don't – I know that beer is still served in pints in pubs, but not any more for the tinned variety; a bit like milk. That things haven't fundamentally changed is your assertion. If you are resisting metrication, it's in your interest to hang on to that Times link for as long as you can. In ten years, we will still be stuck in a time warp if no free style guide on UK measurements is available. But unless we do a comprehensive study in a proper and transparent manner from time to time, there is no way of reliably establishing actual practice at regular intervals. So talking about nostalgia isn't being patronising but about being practical because reflecting "actual practice" is the name of the game as I understand how you peeps want to play it. Using the link is a humongous red herring. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
          • As far as I can recall, the Times was sort of referred to because it was the only UK one we could lay our hands on for free, and was acceptable because all we were looking for was an approximation of actual practice at the time. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
            • @Wee Curry Monster:How can it be not easy for readers to understand when our rules requires a conversion into the other (in parentheses) when either a metric or an imperial measure is used? The only danger is if our reader comes from a civilisation that cannot relate to either. I wonder if they have the same bickering over the "imperial tael" and the "metric tael" (ditto the catty) over at zh.wp? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support removal of the Time style guide. The use of an archived link is tenuous at best. As I've said previously, I do not think that the Times style guide should be referenced to the exclusion of other British style guides. I figure that, if we are to link them, we should link a variety, or cite printed versions. I do not see the removal of this link as opening up a wave of metrication. Our style guide will still stand. In the event that more arguments are had about changing various items in our style guide, other style guides can be referenced in said debate. In other words, the text of the style guide should still ask the reader to "consult major British style guides" for information on appropriate usage. However, it should not send them to a dead/archived link to one style guide. RGloucester — ☎ 15:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose removal of the Times. There is clear benefit to referencing an outside style guide that is trying to approximate British usage, exactly as we are trying to do.

Let us not pretend we do not know from many years of experience what will happen if we remove it. We will be told, within weeks, that we made the whole thing up. We will be told, within weeks, that the current guidance is unsourced and that the fact that that editor can find one website that gives distances in kilometres means that the British all use kilometres really and just put miles on the road signs to confuse foreigners. It's happened before. Many times.

The use of sources here is a good idea for exactly the same reasons as it is a good idea on articles. We don't use sources on articles just because

WP:V tells us to. We use them so that our facts can be checked as needed by readers. Exactly the same benefit is available here by citing the source that our advice is based on. Kahastok talk

18:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It should not be this difficult to remove a dead link that sends readers on a wild-goose chase looking for an eleven-year old style guide that we don't even agree with. We are telling readers to go and look at a style guide while actually sending them to the front page of The Times. We are not just citing it, and if we were citing it, as in an article, it would probably deserve a {{Failed verification}} tag. —Boson (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In fact, the Guardian's style guide is more in line with ours than that of the Times. RGloucester — ☎ 19:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't. The Guardian advises that we measure all liquids in pints. Quite rightly, we don't come anywhere near that.

There seems to be some pushing on this spurious argument that it must be everything or nothing. There is room in the middle ground between following the Times religiously and ignoring it entirely. That's what we do here. The advice is our own, based on the Times, but adapted to our own needs. And it is sensible that we actually demonstrate that it has some basis in usage. Kahastok talk 19:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian DOES NOT advise that all liquids be measured in pints. It does not, as you said in your edit summary, advise that petrol be measured in pints. It says that miles and pints are acceptable units to use in certain circumstances. Regardless, the fundamental problem with the Times link is that it isn't easily accessible or current. If someone can provide a present printed copy to verify, then scan it up and let's see it. RGloucester — ☎ 19:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It says, "We use the metric system for weights and measures; exceptions are the mile and the pint." That doesn't say that the mile and pint are merely "acceptable units to use in certain circumstances". There is no get-out or middle ground. It says - without any form of qualification whatsoever - that miles and pints are exceptions to metrication. You have to do some pretty serious inference to suggest that they advise anything other than the pint for petrol.

The fact remains that it is useful to cite the source for the advice, for the reasons I have given. And I remain opposed to the attempt to remove it. Kahastok talk 20:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"Serious inference" or common sense? The Guardian's style guide assumes that the reader is capable of common sense, as should we here. If one reads the whole damn thing, it is quite clear that it is not asking one to use pints for petrol. Petrol isn't sold by the pint. It isn't quoted by the pint. Search for Guardian articles on petrol prices, and one will quickly see that they use litres for reference to petrol. What a surprise! RGloucester — ☎ 23:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Now you're inferring a policy from individual instances of usage. People don't always follow their own style guides. We have the official Guardian policy, and it calls for the use of pints as an exception to metrication, without any form of qualification or conditionality whatsoever in any part of the guide. If a Guardian article uses litres for petrol, they're breaking their own style guide.

And there is a wider point here. The argument above, that you seemed to endorse, is that if we base our rules the Times, we must use all of the rules in the Times, applied absolutely religiously, regardless of common sense or Wikipedia norms. And yet the same does not seem to apply to the Guardian! The Guardian's guide we are allowed to adapt and interpret, but that is absolutely forbidden for the Times. I see no reason why common sense should be allowed to apply to one but not the other. Kahastok talk 23:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with the argument that if the Times is used, it must be solely used as the basis of our rules. I merely do not like the Times as a source, as no current link to the present guide is available. The Guardian's guide is accessible, and is mostly in line with our guidelines.

I'm sure when reading that style guide, you do not feel that it meant that "pints" were the only liquid unit of measurement that is acceptable? It merely meant that the only acceptable non-SI units that could be used were "miles and pints". But never mind.

If we must have basis for the style guide, as you say, in "sources", then the sources need be easily accessible and current. I'm not so sure we even need "sources", as this is our style guide, and we get to make it however we choose. We could say: "All measurements of length must take place using the barleycorn". Nevertheless, if we MUST have sources, then our sources mustn't be as mucky as the Times. RGloucester — ☎ 00:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly. Style guides are not a statement of fact but of editorial preference, and we shouldn't confuse the two. We don't need to rely on a duff Times link, and it's clear that we don't even base ourselves on any version of "Ye Times Stile Gyde", let alone one that's a decade old. Talking about "official Guardian policy [calling] for the use of pints for all liquids without any form of qualification" is picking at hairs because there's a lot more in the Times guide that we don't follow, and I that RG brought up The Guardian as a closer approximation to our practice is perfectly reasonable suggestion. Although it's not the "rigidity" that some may prefer. Some claim that we are basing usage on The Times, so we're still capable of picking and choosing. Why not pick and choose from a buffet that's closer to our tastes?

  Our MOS has never been prescriptive, as such an approach is usually frowned upon as

  instruction creep, but seems to exist here as an anomaly. Kahastok and WCM seem to want the MOS to be ultra-rigid, to protect Wikipedia against one evil and devious editor. But this is the tail wagging the dog. The way to deal with disruptive editors is not to pile on a mountain of rules, but to have the disrupter(s) banned or blocked for their disruption. -- Ohc ^¡digame!
  02:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, Please don't take Kahastok and WCM's threats at face value. They've been making the same threat for at least a year. The threats, the bullying and the rest are just a ploy to derail any discussion about changing MOSNUM in a direction they don't like. It's disruptive but it has helped derail any change in MOSNUM for years. It's last triumph was to derail my proposal to provide a better link to their beloved Times Style Guide' on the ground that because I proposed it it must be wrong. Michael Glass (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean you're not evil? ;-) We have not always seen eye to eye, but I know what a useless link is. I think most people will also see that's the case, even if some editors refuse to admit it. Such intransigence and rhetoric in the face of the obvious is regrettable, and not removing a bad link (or rather, deliberately leaving it there) reflects poorly on us collectively. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've never argued that these rules should be "ultra-rigid", nor applied them ultra-rigidly. That's a bit of a caricature that originated from an editor who insists that the rules can either be a strait-jacket or a free-for-all, and that there can be nothing in between.

My view has always been that variation is good and proper - if there is a good reason for it. I included such flexibility explicitly in this rule in my suggestion at User:Kahastok/Units2. But what is so frequently proposed - the "can is not must" proposals - is wordings that we know will be interpreted as allowing variation even if the only reason is a single editor's personal preference.

We don't allow people to switch from AD to CE purely for reasons of personal preference. We don't allow people to switch from MDY to DMY without good reason. Personal preference should not be an acceptable reason to vary from this rule either.

The choice of units we use is based on the Times, not the Guardian. Of course we include conversions, and of course we don't use it as a reason to use miles globally. It would be very odd if we allowed our measure of British usage to dictate usage everywhere or to override other rules in this section. That does not change the fact that the choice is based on the Times. If the Guardian is similar, again, that's all well and good - demonstrates we're on the right track. But does not change the fact that the choice is based on the Times. Kahastok talk 10:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's disputing that The Times is the one that we mention in the guideline. The fact that The Guardian is closer to our usage is related but is a separate issue, and I'm sorry I digressed. As Uzer points out, the proposal is only about removing the duff link. Full Stop. We all know The Times exists and that it has a website. We also all know that Rupert has put everything behind a paywall; the value of a link to the home page of the Times is zero. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think some perspective is needed here; this is an obscure footnote on an obscure guideline we're talking about. My original proposal was just to remove a link which is dead, so that people don't waste time clicking it and wondering what's going on. Not to change the fact that we mention the Times (though someone else might want to propose that). Am I right in saying that no argument has been given for retaining the dead link, nor has anyone disputed the fact that it is dead? W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I am amazed that this is even being discussed. A dead link has no place on Wikipedia. If I knew which link it was about I would just remove it to end this absurd discussion. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about the link to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and_services/specials/style_guide/article986731.ece in Footnote 9 in section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Other articles. Since the link is dead, it automatically redirects to the front page of today's Times, which – surprisingly – has nothing about metric units. --Boson (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Uzer, Dondervogel 2 and Boson: Wikipedia:Link rot recommends replacement of dead links with a link to an archived version, and states: "do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer" [emphasis in original]. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be primarily about links that are added as references for information in articles. The reason given for retaining it is that it might be possible to replace it with an archived link - we can do that here if people think it's a good idea (in spite of the fact that it will not be updated as the world changes) and if it doesn't constitute a breach of copyright, as was suggested above.But since we are all now aware of the issue and how to find the archived or paywalled link should we want to use them, there isn't any point in keeping the non-functioning link on the page for people to click and be baffled. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

PS I've just found that the

WP:COPYLINK, which explicitly states that linking to Wayback is OK. So seems copyright is not an issue here. W. P. Uzer (talk

) 15:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, that refers to citations in references, which do not have to be accessible online, provided that they are available in a library or the like, as with normal scholarly references. It does not apply to links where we are basically teling the reader to read and observe what is written there, thus de facto incorporating the content into Wikipedia. This, together with the fact that the content was moved behind a paywall (with all that implies about the copyright holder's intent), raises copyright concerns not addressed by the reference to archives at

WP:COPYLINK

. However, I am not a copyright expert. I have no copyright-related qualms about stating that our MoS is based inter alia on information contained in The Times Style and Usage Guide (of which I habe a copy) and providing a normal citation, for instance as follows:

• Austin, Tim (2003). The Times Style and Usage Guide. Times Books.
  ISBN 9780007145058
  .

That should address concerns raised by one editor that we should indicate our sources (to show that we were not making it up, etc.).

I do have concerns (inter alia) about giving undue weight to this particular guide. It would probably be more appropriate to refer to the article you mention, or more specifically to the relevant section: Style guide#Journalism. I have less concerns about the link to the online archive there because it does not instruct the reader, by implication, to read and observe the content. My main concern, which is only tangentially relevant to the issue of the link is that we appear to be telling editors to comply with a journalistic house style, whereas I believe Wikipedia should base its house style on the typical usage of encyclopaedias etc. --Boson (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree that we should not give undue weight to the Times style guide. If we do not have a guide that is sufficient for all articles whose subjects are related to the United Kingdom, then we should either create one, and use the relevant existing style guides as references, or direct editors to a style guide that is appropriate for editing an encyclopaedia. I do not think that we should be telling editors to use the Times style guide for editing Wikipedia articles. However, this is a separate issue to whether we should replace a dead link to a web page. Boson's argument that we should handle references and "further reading" external links differently is consistent with Wikipedia:External links#What can be done with a dead external link, so if there are concerns about implicit encouragement of potential copyright infringement, then I would support a link to Special:BookSources/9780007145058, as Boson suggested, instead of the Internet Archive. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should give it undue weight, but I don't think we do now. We do not tell editors to "use the Times style guide for editing Wikipedia articles" - the wording is Note the style guides of British publications such as Times Online (under "Metric"). At the end of a long footnote. I do not believe that any significant number of editors is credibly going to read this and believe that the Times guide overrides the rule outlined in the text.

I see no reason for copyright concern about using the Wayback Machine when our own

policy on copyrights

says explicitly say that this is allowed. There is nothing in the rule that suggests that it only applies to citations.

I believe I have mentioned my months-old suggestion at User:Kahastok/Units2 several times in this discussion. The formula there is the following approximation to local usage (broadly based on the style guide of The Times) is applied. Kahastok talk 19:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I see it has been proposed elsewhere on this page that we should bundle four problems together. We can expect that this will lead nowhere, since we cannot get consensus to change everything at once; we know this from past experience. So I suggest that we should just stick to the issue of the Times reference here, since we seem to have already reached consensus. The proposal was "to remove the link to The Times Style Guide". There is broad consensus to do that (with only two opposing, by my count), so I suggest we remove the link immediately and then start new – very focussed and therefore very brief – discussions on

1. whether we should remove the footnote completely (and possibly include a statement similar to what you suggested, indicating what the MoS recommendations are based on).
2. whether we should specifically mention only The Times
3. whether we should provide external links (as opposed to normal citations for verification) to any style guides that we do mention.

We should be able to quickly establish consensus on those points too, if we don't bundle these very simple issues with everything else.

—Boson (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The footnote should not be removed. I spent ages before trying to get it moved into the body. Even though that failed, removing the footnote should not be on the table. It is essential that directions for what to do in cases of conflict are given. RGloucester — ☎ 02:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Boson: good suggestion. My answers: 1/Probably no, better as a footnote than in the body, but we definitely need a firm statement of principles and maybe some examples; 2/No; 3/No. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Since no-one's given any reason for retaining it (and I can hardly imagine there would be any such reason), I've removed (commented out) the pointless and confusing link that is supposed to go to a Times style guide but does nothing of the sort. I also changed "Times Online" to just "The Times", since I don't think there is a separate style guide for the online version of the Times. The sentence in question now provides a link to an article on style guides which in turn contains references to a number a newspaper style guides, including the Times. In fact the statement in the footnote says style guides for newspapers such as the Times (formerly: Times Online), which doesn't imply the Times one is any more authoritative than any others, so we could remove "such as the Times" with no change of meaning, but I've left it there for now. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I haven't undone your

WP:BOLD

move WPUzer, I have replaced it with a link to the wayback machine.

• Should we remove footnote? Absolutely not, the footnote is there for a reason. Its to give guidelines on usage specific to UK articles without cluttering the main text.
• Whether we should specifically mention only The Times? Is a leading question along the lines of should be stop beating our wives. The Times has been mentioned as an example and as such remains relevant.
• Whether we should provide external links (as opposed to normal citations for verification) to any style guides that we do mention? Absolutely, yes we should, every time there is any ambiguity its used to game the system.

The suggestion that this is a strait jacket instructing users they must follow the style guide is a red herring, its there to provide guidance and historically its been done for a very good reason. That very good reason is that ambiguity is and has been used repeatedly to advance external agendas by pressure groups such as "Metric Matters" to impose metrication on wikipedia that doesn't reflect general usage in the UK. Equally we've had a spot of cultural imperialism from across the pond insisting its got to be imperial.

And what everyone seems to forget, we have a policy of reflecting local usage, so as to provide information in the best form for our READERS to understand. Leave your personal preference at home people and think of the people we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia for. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a minor point - there was nothing bold (or WP:BOLD) about my edit - it was based on long and tedious discussion and the consensus that apparently resulted, which is quite the antithesis of what BOLD means. W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I note your point that we should consider the best phrasing of the questions, though I do not agree that anything is analogous to "have you stopped beating your wife?" If you really wanted to use that analogy, it might be considered analogous to a situation where there was a recommendation to beat lots of women, including your wife, and I asked whether we should

1. reject the recommendation suggestion completely
2. remove the specific mention of your wife
3. link to any instructions on wife-beating that we choose to include.

However, I don't think such analogies are very helpful, so perhaps we could just ask whether we should name one or more style guides and whether we should refer to newspapers' style guides at all.

--Boson (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This is what I was trying to avoid, because we seem to be unable to get consensus on everything at once. I share some of the views expressed above, but I think we should discuss each issue separately (i.e. in separate sections, and preferably later). Otherwise, we will be back to the endless circular discussions most of us remember from last time. It is simply not an effective way of doing things.

Though there appears to be consensus that the dead link needs to be removed, as yet, no consensus has been established whether we should replace it with a link to the Wayback machine or not. I think the relevant arguments have al been discussed, so we need to answer the simple question:

• After removing the dead link, should we replace it with a link to the archived version at the Wayback machine? :--Boson (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly support having separate discussions, ideally without the usual character assassinations directed at Michael Glass, which are tedious and do not help in the formation of any sort of consensus. It particularly interests me that the Times guide, which is if anything a wee bit more conservative than ours, states that the overwhelming preference is for metric in sport and engineering. I was only barely able to persuade other editors to agree to allow the use of the metric-first style for engineering-related articles where the original units are metric; the compromise (in my view, a sensible one) was that imperial units could be preferred for older pre-metric engineering such as Brunel. I have occasionally made the point that in many sports the official measurements of height and weight are indeed metric, but this has also been ignored; I recall that Michael Glass made a similar suggestion to this effect, but certain other editors ignored it, deciding that they preferred to obsess over the ever-fascinating topic of Michael Glass, rather than discussing which units are used in different sports. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who you're referring to there. I do not believe the proposals on sports ever moved beyond the notion that we should create a list of sports where people are to be measured in stones and pounds in UK-related articles, a list where they are to be measured in pounds, and a list where they are to be measured in kilograms. The guideline is already complicated enough, there is no benefit to us, to the editor or to the reader in our adding a vast quantity of needless extra complication. Far better, in sports where weight in specific system is significant, to accept that variations are appropriate if there is a genuinely good reason for them.

On Boson's three points, I feel that the footnote serves a useful purpose, that the Times specifically is useful because it is the source of the advice, and that a link is a good idea for clarity, in case readers wish to inspect the source we used, and loses us nothing. I oppose adding a claim that the advice was based on style guides that it is not in fact based on. Kahastok talk 18:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why it would be considered excessive to give instructions as to which units to use for different sports, when we're already talking about pints of milk (is this guideline relevant to even a single article?). I'd like to think that editorial discretion could be relied upon to use the standard that prevails in the relevant sport, but when we have editors who would apparently read style guidelines in such an unnaturally pedantic way that they would see the Guardian as requiring the use of pints for fuel (or the volume of the Pacific Ocean, say) then maybe this is too much to hope for.

I don't care much about the Times link either way, but I agree with W. P. Uzer and others that having a dead link is an absolute nonsense, and keeping it there for manifestly political reasons is doubly so. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. That Times link should not be included ... at least not framed, as now, as a sole or primary authority. Tony (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarity of the UK metric/imperial guidance

My impression on looking at the whole section in question is that it's generally so complex and imprecise that, even in the unlikely event of an editor consulting it, they'll probably just give up and go and do what they were going to do anyway. I notice on an article like Cheshire that there's a right old mix of formats (sometimes km with miles in brackets, sometimes miles with km in brackets, sometimes just km - there are also cases of km2 for areas with sq m. in brackets), and having read the guidance here, I'm still none the wiser as to which format is "supposed" to be used in such an article. Linking people to external style guides which may or may not be wholly or partially applicable to Wikipedia isn't going to help much either. I see this issue is already receiving far more attention than it deserves, so I don't think I shall be adding any more of my own tuppences to the discussion, but I suggest you all try to remember the end user of all this stuff and try to give her or him either clear instructions, or no instructions at all. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There are clear instructions.

For distances in the UK, this should generally be miles. So it should simply be 12 miles (19 km) for example. The reason you see an odd mixture, is that some editors who advocate use of the metric system deliberately take it upon themselves to edit contrary to

WP:MOSNUM

. So we see articles that become a beggars muddle. Equally we see editors in this camp besieging whole wikiprojects and converting them wholesale to the metric system. The Falkland Islands Workgroup was literally paralysed for nearly two years by two editors insisting that they should become a shining metric example.

There are several pressure groups out there that see wikipedia as mechanism for advocating that the UK switches wholly over to the metric system (if you want to find evidence of this simply google "Metric Matters" or "Metric Views" and you'll recognise several contributors who openly talk about this on their forums). The fact that the UK hasn't is a complete anathema to them and they're constantly coming to

WT:MOSNUM

will show that the subject of metrication is raised on UK articles on a weekly/monthly cycle since 2007 by the same editors. That people see this and groan "oh no, not again" may have something to do with that simple fact.

The same individuals see the groan "oh no, not again" response as "character assasination" whilst at the same time addressing anyone who has the temerity to suggest that imperial measurements still have use in the UK as if they are some neo-conservative, knuckle-dragging, imbecelic luddite.

Like I've said many times, if you want Wikipedia to go metric, start an RFC and convince the project. The war of attrition over trivia is really not the way to do it. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

But why should I believe you about what the consensus is, rather than them? Has it been agreed at some point by some sufficiently large group of people that in general articles related to the UK (like Cheshire) we should always put miles and square miles first, and km and km2 in brackets? It makes no difference to me either way, but if that's the agreement, should the guideline not state that clearly, so that someone with an automated script can go around with a clear conscience fixing all such articles? W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't care whether you believe me or not but I suggest you read

WP:MOSNUM is clear that distance in UK articles is one of those occasions where the imperial unit (mile) should be put first. The guidelines are clear on this. And one of the editors currently socking to flout their indefinite block and topic ban was topic banned and then blocked for a ridiculous edit war over this. Wee Curry Monster talk

12:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop pretending that it's just Michael Glass who is dissatisfied with the UK units situation, and that anyone who wants UK articles to use metric units more consistently (at the very least, where they are the officially-used units in the UK) is a mindless fanatic. I've never tried to argue that imperial units aren't used, but I have argued that in many cases the metric units are in official use, and this is something which an encyclopedia (which generally strives to reflect more formal/professional/official usage) cannot ignore, especially where the preference in other articles is for metric units. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

So are we to understand that (in Cheshire, for example) distances are to be given in miles first, but areas in square kilometres first? Can anyone link me to a discussion where any of this was agreed by consensus? It seems rather a strange way of doing things, given that one of the aims of this guidance is allegedly to provide consistency. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Consistency would be to pick a system of units and use it, in the absence of sound reason to the contrary. Muddled as it is, the existing MOSNUM guidance is to prefer the metric system, with a list of exceptions. Area units aren't given as an exception, which is what I meant. If you say that square miles are preferred over square kilometres, this might give a semblance of greater consistency with miles vs. km as distance measurements, but it would cause inconsistency with other area measures (hectares vs. acres and square metres vs. square yards and square feet). I'm not convinced that creating an additional muddle in the area units is worthwhile, especially considering that the imperial area units are officially deprecated in the UK. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• I would ask Mr Uzer to please read previous debates here at MOSNUM for more information on how the present guidelines were decided. The point of this guide, insomuch as it has been "based on the Times", is that it is meant to mimic British usage as closely as it can. British usage is mixed. As a result, units from different systems are mixed. It is not that hard to comprehend. Perhaps I'd personally prefer us to choose one or the other, but that will never achieve consensus by virtue of the controversial nature of this topic. While I do not presume that you are doing this intentionally, it feels like you are digging up old wounds. RGloucester — ☎ 15:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm just trying to get clarity. If there is no overall consensus on a particular issue, that can still be said clearly, and left to be worked out article by article. At the moment it isn't even clear on what matters there is a consensus and on what matters there isn't. But no-one seems to care about this dysfunctionality of the guideline, being too busy with personal accusations and/or pushing their own respectively pro-imperial or pro-metric viewpoints. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The guidance is to use miles for distances and for consistency most people would use sq mi for area. As usual because we don't specify this in MOSNUM some will use sq km first instead out of sheer bloody mindedness. And for a 10 km race most people would sensibly describe it as a 10 km race per

WP:IAR

and that particular example is raising trivia again; MOSNUM would already allow you to use km for races where it is appropriate. MOSNUM is supposed to be a simple guideline, it gives general guidelines and makes the extremely naive assumption editors can use common sense and consensus to ensure articles are consistent. We seem a lack of common sense as editors argue from a position of advocacy not what is best for readers or the articles.

And please cut the luddite accuations, they're getting boring. I have already explained my position and to continue accuse me of editing tp favour the imperial system is simply an example of

Projection bias. Wee Curry Monster talk

15:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Many British publications do deliberately choose to prefer the metric system (indeed, pretty much any vaguely technical publication does), so it's hardly an unreasonable suggestion for Wikipedia, at least in more technical or specialist articles. If horses can be described in hands, which is a unit that most people will find obscure, then why can athletes not be weighted in kilograms, which is not an obscure unit at all? We can at least aim for a wee bit more consistency than that. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Please point me to where I suggested you personally edited out of "bloody-mindedness"; I commented that some editors deliberately do so and yes we have had examples of editors doing that. Equally we've had numerous examples of editors arguing MOSNUM needs to be changed because of some trivial example they've found. Examples:

• Miles are used for road distance but perhaps because Motorway Location Signs use km MOSNUM should mention that as an exemption.
• Milk is bought and sold in pints but perhaps because some imports come in litres, MOSNUM should mention this as an exemption.

I could go on but the point is made. As it stands every example you've just listed, is permissible within the limits of MOSNUM. These recommendations are partly based on the style guides of certain British newspapers, including The Times, [8] The Guardian,[9] and The Economist.[10] If there is disagreement about the main units used in a UK-related article, discuss the matter on the article talk-page, at MOSNUM talk, or both. If consensus cannot be reached, refer to historically stable versions of the article and retain the units used in these as the main units.

If there is a good reason, discuss it, the example would be that a consensus to change the recommendation on engineering related articles was relatively easy to achieve. And by the way you've repeatedly made what I would politely describe as uncharitable remarks or barbs aimed at me, so preaching about civility rings hollow. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I still object to our claiming that the advice is based on any style guide that it is not in fact based on. The only mention of the Economist style guide is in Curry Monster's comment when he quoted the advice as it was at the time, so it is difficult to see from where any editor has divined a consensus for it. I also do not see consensus to include the Guardian in the quote, and note with interest that the Telegraph is not also in the frame to be included. Kahastok talk 18:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The text says "Note the style guides of British publications such as..." Why would anyone object to following that with a list of several such style guides rather than one? It is not being stated that those style guides are the basis for our own guidance - it is simply being suggested that if (as is likely) you still don't know what to do after reading our own guidance, you might like to seek inspiration from other guides. If we think we're helping people by making such a suggestion, we may as well give them several such links if we're aware of them, to save them the trouble of looking them out for themselves. I really have no idea how this triviality has become an edit-warring issue. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually feel we'd be better off citing it explicitly as where the advice came from, partly because people seem to think that the current wording can be construed as overriding the rule provided, and because that is the whole point in citing the style guide in the first place.

As I say, I reverted because I object to it being claimed that the advice was based on guides that it was not in fact based on, and because I saw no consensus for any particular change other than the Wayback Machine. Kahastok talk 21:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be true that (probably before my time ) there was some discussion that included The Times style guide and resulted in a previous version of this guideline, but apart from this historical sense, the guideline is not - in any meaningful way - currently based on The Times style guide, any more than a shirt that is four sizes too large and has three sleeves can be said to fit because it touches the body in some parts, and the extra sleeve can be draped over the shoulder. The Times style guide differs substantially from the current guideline. To state that this guideline is based on it is grossly misleading. Even saying it is broadly based on this and other guides is stretching it a lot. If there is no consensus on the exact wording, the reference to this style guide should be removed completely. --Boson (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That would need consensus. The status quo (i.e. replacement of the link with one from the Wayback Machine) appeared to get consensus in the above discussion. But there is no clear consensus to remove it.

I do not accept that the current rule is anything like as different from the Times guide as you claim. Yes, there are clear differences between our rules and theirs - we've adapted the rules for our purposes and audiences - but basically they're calling for the same things to be imperial-first and the same things to be metric-first. Not identical, but very similar.

(There are two places where we're different. Hands for horses, as discussed below, came in from consensus at

WP:EQUINE

, and feet for aircraft altitude is most common throughout the world so it would be odd to treat it as UK-specific. There are also differences in the details of conversions - but we don't care because this isn't the rule on conversions. It doesn't mean that the choice of units isn't similar.)

On the other hand, anyone who compares the two will see that your claim that the rule was partly based on the Economist is absurd. Kahastok talk 23:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, there was a clear consensus to remove the link, which was done. That was followed by some bold edits and reverts, and no consensus has been established on anything else. I am waiting for things to settle down a bit before addressing the way forward from the last established consensus (rather than any arbitrary current status depending on who last edited). I briefly listed the main issues regarding the footnote where consensus still needs to be determined. If we just continue calmly, point by point, without haste and without rancour, there need be no great problem.

If you actually compare our current guideline with The Times style guide, you will see clear differences. Anyone who followed The Times style guide would be in clear violation of our guideline on many issues, particularly on when conversion is necessary. You could, and should of course, use your common sense and ignore much of it, but then why point readers there in the first place? If our guideline were based solely on The Times style guide it would also be inappropriate. We have no business basing our usage on a single style guide written for journalistic use. This is one of the main problems that underlies a lot of the dissent: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We should follow the usage in serious books. Newspapers have very different requirements: for instance, they tend to be less formal and they have a greater need to save space; they are also allowed to have a progressive or reactionary viewpoint; British newspapers are allowed to refer to "the Queen" (or even "the Queen Mum"), and the general readership knows which queen is meant, etc. etc. --Boson (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It only says "Note the style guides ... such as ...", in a footnote; it's hardly a big deal, and is not delegating any authority. I wish people would focus more on making the substance of our guideline clearer. For example, if it's in fact the consensus that we always put miles before kilometres but that with square miles and square kilometres it's article-by-article, then that should be stated explicitly, with examples even. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sure we would all welcome a clear guideline that reflects consensus. I suggest you put forward a proposal of the form "I propose replacing old text with new text because that better describes the existing consensus". --Boson (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There has been numerous attempts to provide improved guidance:

User:Kahastok/Units
User:RGloucester/units
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Units

If you want to know why this is so difficult refer to User talk:Michael Glass#Horses, "three very determined and dyed in the wool conservative blue rinses" and "I suspect they live in mortal fear of metrication" and "these dudes are not rational". The same people making accusation of lacking good faith and ad hominem attacks. Whereas in reality, its they who have no good faith whatsoever and project such negativity into any discussion.

And to put this into perspective, the guidance is to generally favour metric but provide an imperial conversion. In a few limited circumstances reflecting common usage in the UK switch it around and put the imperial first. Its a sensible compromise.

But you know what, I actually favour metrication in the UK and standardising on the metric system. The current half-arsed position in the UK is farsical and as a professional engineer and former soldier I have used the metric system throughout my professional life. I don't however impose my personal preference in my writing on wikipedia and I can't believe I have to explain myself yet again. Some people need to grow up a great deal. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "bad faith", the very same editor who was so quick to reassure us — with no small amount of condescension — that of course the nominal units could be used first, and we are simply imagining the pro-imperial bias, was also very quick to argue that the HS2 article wasn't engineering-related, because that would mean that the dearly-beloved miles could be given precedence. In his favour, I will at least say that he did not try to argue against local consensus on the talk page, unlike the latest addition to DeFacto's sock drawer. He did, however, sacrifice a bit of credibility when he started to talk about how he didn't understand those newfangled kilometre things anyway (honestly, if you want other people to take you seriously, boasting about how you lack a basic numeracy skill, the like of which I'd expect of a competent primary-school child, is not the way to go). So perhaps there's a hint of personal preference on the other side of the fence also. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

how he didn't understand those newfangled kilometre things anyway – say what? Shome mishtake... It's one of those things on the pavement that I put coins into when I park the car, innit? ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And as to "I suspect they live in mortal fear of metrication" – it's certainly the impression that comes across strongly when metrication is mentioned, the threat that is presented by the simple addition a link to the Guardian style guide to dilute an obsolete style guide that doesn't even fit with what we are practicing, not to mention the invectives and ad hominem that appear as soon as the protagonist identifies himself as Michael Glass, or anyone who threatens the wiki-status quo. I'm just a Brit who lives outside of Blighty who likes a bit more anal consistency than the mess that is here right now, and who believes that the true extent of metrication of the UK is being deliberately understated by three dyed-in-the wool conservatives. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've never edited

WP:ANI because frankly I am sick of it. Equally the stupid infantile name calling should stop now. And I really don't think the claims that we are understating the true extent of metrication in the UK help either. That is simply hysterical bullshit conspiracy crap and as usual are leading any rational discussion to become acrimonious and this is why the guidelines don't move forward. Pull your head out of your arse and stop being so fucking up yourself. Wee Curry Monster talk

13:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Good lord, what a silly outburst. None of that paragraph was talking about you specifically, WCM. I try to avoid calling people out, but for what it's worth, the guy who said that HS2 wasn't engineering-related and that he didn't understand kilometres was Kahastok, and the sock puppet was the recently-deceased Passy2. None of those things apply to you, lest I be misunderstood — people in this discussion seem to have problems with reading comprehension. I will however say that you are more than a bit paranoid, intemperate and needlessly hysterical. Your comments are some of the rudest in this entire discussion. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The accusations of being paranoid, intemperate and hysterical aren't helping either. Stop being a

WP:DICK eh. Wee Curry Monster talk

The view I put was that upon reading High Speed 2, the article primarily discussed politics, not engineering. It still does - unsurprisingly because we're discussing a project that does not yet exist except as a political football. I was far from the only editor to put that view here at the time. But I also pointed out that it's a matter for the talk page, not MOSNUM. And if the talk page disagrees with me then as I made clear at the time I'm perfectly happy with that. Kahastok talk 18:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misrepresented you, but some of the arguments that have been made in the past (by no means only by you) were very odd indeed, and came across as excuses not to use metric units even in cases where these were in fact the units in actual use. In any case, that entire silly misadventure ended up with DeFacto's latest smelly sock being discarded into the laundry. I seem to recall that poor arguments such as "you can't visualise a thousand metre sticks end-to-end" were also advanced at one point (for the sake of fairness, one has to ask, how easy is it to imagine 1760 three-foot rules end-to-end?).

The point that I am trying to make is that it's not obviously a political choice to prefer a particular measurement system, in the way that it would be to insist that only nice things may be written about a certain party or candidate. Indeed, many British publications do the former whilst being in no danger of doing the latter, and this does not compromise their political neutrality (which I of course agree is important for a reference work). I am not, however, arguing that Wikipedia usage should ignore real-world British usage. The units shown on road signs are relevant to roads, and the units used in physical geography are relevant to physical geography; saying "just put miles first regardless" is too coarse a rule. Geographical disciplines in the UK, such as hydrology, typically use metric units, whereas by contrast they often use US customary units in the USA (miles, acre-feet and cu ft/s etc.). That is a real distinction, I admit, which could sensibly justify the preference for US customary units in articles about hydrology in the USA.

Now, if we're talking about the Times, it's interesting to note that there is an "overwhelming preference" for metric in sport and engineering. My own philosophy is that articles on a certain sport should closely follow the units used in that sport, and likewise for engineering and science. This comes over and above relevance to particular countries. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's difficult to visualise a thousand metre rulers end-to-end. You can understand what a kilometre is without having an intuitive idea of how long a distance measured in kilometres is. It's also difficult to visualise 1760 yardsticks, but most Brits wouldn't need to. Same as most French wouldn't need to visualise a thousand metre rules end-to-end.

Let me demonstrate this to you by introducing the kilofoot. One kilofoot is one thousand feet laid end-to-end. For anyone who doesn't know the length of a foot, it's roughly the long side of an A4 sheet of paper. So, without converting into metres, kilometres or miles, you have five seconds. How far do you go if you travel 75 kilofeet? Do you leave your city? Does it take you to the next town, or the next city, or the next state/province/country?

Most people are going to have difficulty because they do not have a mental scale in kilofeet. You know what a kilofoot is, but that doesn't help. In the same way, most Brits don't have an intuitive scale in kilometres. Practically everyone under a certain age will know what a kilometre is but that doesn't mean that they can visualise 75 kilometres without converting it into miles.

What you are proposing overall is to make this rule a whole lot more complicated with a whole lot more fine distinctions. People complain it's too complicated already. Making it more complicated is a step backward in my opinion. It needs to reflect British usage, but it also needs not to be ridiculously hard to follow, and it needs not to be so vague as to be rendered meaningless (the "can is not must" argument).

I'd note that my proposal adopts a general rule that we use the units used in the country concerned, and goes on to outline what that means. But it also says that exceptions to the outline are appropriate where there is a genuinely good reason for them. I've always understood this in the existing rule but the fact that others do not make it useful to state explicitly. Kahastok talk 21:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I understand what you mean, but it's still not a very fair analogy. The kilofoot is an extremely obscure unit used to measure certain things by some engineers in one country (i.e. the USA) and the overwhelming majority of people everywhere will never even have considered measuring distances in multiples of 1000 ft, whereas the kilometre is an extremely common standard international unit of distance. It's the sole unit used in every country around us, as well as being used for lots of things in the UK, so someone who has never thought about a distance in km has probably not got out much, to say the least.

From the perspective of one British person (i.e. me), the mile is a unit I would use for driving in basically two countries on Earth, and not for very much else. I do a lot of running, skiing and cycling, and measure distances for these things in km (which is common in the UK, it's not just me by any means). Running a certain distance in km certainly gives you an intuitive feel for the size of the unit, much more than road signs do. I wouldn't normally think about distances beyond the scale of the UK in any unit other than km — I certainly don't think about things like distances to other continents, the size of the Earth, or the distance to the moon in miles. My point is that there are many contexts in which people become familiar with kilometres as a distance unit (to say nothing of the many professions in which people will use metric distance units), so comparisons with arcana like kilofeet or furlongs are not helpful.

All that being said, I am sympathetic to the idea of having a broad rule with sensible exceptions, but there is the perpetual annoyance caused by editors (like the many-headed hydra DeFacto) insisting that miles have to go first regardless, and pointing towards overly-strict rules on MOSNUM in support of their case (during his short life, Passy2 liked to insist that the HS2 article had to be imperial-first "as MOSNUM demands"). Other editors who are not aware of the context of the MOSNUM rule could easily be swayed by this sort of rhetoric. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think a cooldown period is warranted. As soon as personal attacks and arguments based on the character of editors start getting tossed around, there is no point in continuing reasonable conversation. RGloucester — ☎ 13:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree This is going nowhere. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a discrepancy at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Unit names and symbols, which states:

Why is it that repeating the unit is not required for ranges (5.9–6.3 kg, from 5.9 to 6.3 kg) but not for dimensions (1 m × 3 m × 6 m, not 1 × 3 × 6 m)? This seems to be an arbitrary distinction that will only confuse editor having to remember and apply different rules to analogous cases. Unless there is a particular reason, shouldn't the same rule be applied in both cases (e.g., the unit can be mentioned at the end if it is the same unit used for both limits in the range/all dimensions in the set)? —sroc 💬 02:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe it’s because the units of a range have the same dimension as its endpoints, but this is not the case for areas and volumes formed by multiplication: the repetition of the units emphasizes that they belong to the individual dimensions, not their product. Note that the deprecated usages shown in the first example of the latter kind give the units as either m or m³, illustrating this ambiguity. When using “by“ rather than the multiplication sign, a single unit at the end is less likely to be mistakenly attributed to the product instead of the individual dimensions. (Personally, I would avoid using the multiplication sign in prose—as opposed to tables, infoboxes, &c.—unless referring to the product of the terms, explicitly identified as an area, volume, or whatever.)—Odysseus1479 04:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This exactly. 1 m × 3 m × 6 m unambiguously means 18 m³, whereas 1 × 3 × 6 m can mean either 18 m³ or 18 m. Indrek (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks! —sroc 💬 12:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no ambiguity myself. The product of 1, 3 and 6 m is 18 m, always. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but the point is that if you really want to talk about the product of 1 m, 3 m, and 6 m (as would most often be the case), you have to make that explicit to be reliably understood. There need not be syntactic ambiguity in an expression, taken at face value and in isolation, for there to exist semantic ambiguity in context. Consider the double negative in ‘uneducated’ English dialects, e.g. “I don’t have none of them”, or such idioms as “I could care less“: taken literally they say the opposite of what they mean. This sort of ambiguity is usually resolved quite readily, even unconsciously, by native speakers (especially in conversation, with added cues from intonation and so on), but here we should avoid burdening the reader with such tasks.—Odysseus1479 19:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Dondervogel 2: Actually, the product of 1, 3 and 6 m would be 18 m³. If something is 1 m tall, 3 m wide and 6 m deep, its volume is 18 m³. In this context, "18 m" is meaningless. —sroc 💬 23:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Who said it was a volume? Read the expression as written, without making assumptions about a likely context, and it’s the product of two dimensionless numbers and a length. It might be the solution to a problem like “A single-lane driveway comprises three concrete slabs, each 6 m long. What is the maximum total length of vehicles that can be parked on it?” So it’s not meaningless, just ambiguous. ;)—Odysseus1479 07:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"1 m × 3 m × 6 m" describes a three-dimensional object that is 1 m tall, 3 m wide and 6 m deep (or some other order) which has a volume of 18 m³.

1 m × 3 m × 6 m

= (1 × 3 × 6) × (m × m × m)

= 18 × m³

= 18 m³

You can also use pairs of figures to describe the area of the sides (1 m × 3 m = 3 m² or 1 m × 6 m = 6 m² or 3 m × 6 m = 18 m²) but not by using all of the dimensions. —sroc 💬 08:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This was tagged as {{Use British English}} last year. Why? In running this through a US spell checker there is only one word that was flagged as not the correct spelling that I saw, and yes that was the British version. I suspect it would be better to simply remove that. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Having the tag there at least discourages people from changing from one to another spelling (and thus wasting a lot of time). Of course, this would work just as well if this were the US-English tag or the NZ-English tag, but it just happened to be the British-English one. Why not put it back (leave a comment that this doesn't apply to examples)? Jimp 08:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I like to trot this out once in a while:

In the last 48 hr I've become aware of a simmering dispute over whether the text of

in American or British English

. With any luck the participants will put that debate (let's call it Debate D1) on hold in order to begin Debate D2: consideration of the variety of English in which D1 should be conducted. Then, if there really is a God in Heaven, D1 and D2 will be the kernel around which will form an infinite regress of metadebates D3, D4, and so on -- a superdense accrection of pure abstraction eventually collapsing on itself to form a black hole of impenetrable disputation, wholly aloof from the mundane cares of practical application and from which no light, logic or reason can emerge.

That some editors will find themselves inexorably and irreversibly drawn into this abyss, mesmerized on their unending trip to nowhere by a kaleidoscope of linguistic scintillation reminiscent of the closing shots of 2001, is of course to be regretted. But they will know in their hearts that their sacrifice is for greater good of Wikipedia. That won't be true, of course, but it would be cruel to disabuse them of that comforting fiction as we bid them farewell and send them on their way.^[1]

EEng (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

:) I don't care if British English is used, or American English, English isn't even my native language. I care about consistency and thought it should be British English ("just following orders"..). I can live with consistently inconsistent (both British and English) if that is preferred (just for the MOS). What I do care about is the section below. comp.arch (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Such tags have no vocation being in non-article space. It certainly wasn't intended as such, and no bot is ever likely to come through WP space to align any spellings to British. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I acted as the bot :) I tend to do that.. not for spelling spelling variant though. Is there actually a bot that does that? Nice. Many inconsistency issues bug me and I would wish bugs could /would handle more of them. For dates (in text and/or refs), nbsp before units space before refs and more. comp.arch (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The new advice at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Specific_units seems to imply that the metre-newton (m·N) is an acceptable alternative to the joule. "The meter-newton", it says "is more commonly expressed as the equivalent joule." The fact of the matter is that the metre-newton is never used as a unit of energy. If the metre-newton need be mentioned at all, the only sane thing to say would be not to use it. Jimp 08:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jimp. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

See my last change regarding this. What about this "When expressing energy as a product of force and length, give the length unit first." comp.arch (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this is wrong. According to the NIST Guide to SI, the MKS unit of torque/moment of force is the newton meter (N · m). For energy, the unit is the joule, but this is also shown as equivalent to N · m. There is no mention of meter newtons. I don't know what to make of foot pounds except maybe it's just tradition. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, this is all way too much worrying about nothing. Articles' use of units is supposed to follow reliable sources anyway, so if the source on some engine discusses it using, or not using, some unit, then that's what we'll do too. MOS doesn't need to resolve this (though it's certainly true -- and no reason not to mention it -- that Joule is the usual unit.) EEng (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I originally added text to this effect because the older version of MOSNUM seemed to imply that, following pound-feet being torque and foot-pounds being energy, there would be an SI unit of torque (newton-metre) and energy (metre-newton). This was just because the older version was badly phrased. The fact is, it's never called a metre-newton in practice; equally one could call it a kilogram-metre squared per second squared in terms of the SI base units, but that name would not be used in any normal circumstances, except perhaps to explain dimensional analysis to students.

I should note again that Wikipedia does not use source-based units, or at least it is not supposed to. The choice of which units to use is determined primarily by which category the article falls into. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd refine Archon's comment; although the guideline may not explicitly say so, the reliable sources about measurement in general should be followed as to unit spelling, abbreviations, symbols, and meaning. MOSNUM also calls out specific fields where there are variations in measurement usage (such as whether to use Julian or Gregorian calendar) and indicates the reliable sources in those fields should be followed. But the concept of using the list of references for a particular article to determine unit usage in that article has been repeatedly rejected. One reason for such rejection is that the references may be aimed at a narrower audience than this encyclopedia. Another reason for such rejection is that crusading editors for or against SI may cherry-pick references for the article that use their favored system of units.

Also, a reminder: joule is a unit, Joule is a dead guy. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

For a dead guy he sure has a lot of energy. I understand what you're both saying, but

(1) This specific newton-meter/meter-newton/joule issues has nothing to do with SI/non-SI.

(2) I realize that articles may (even must) give certain straightforward conversions and calculations not in the sources on point, and thus may have to make units-selection choices not in those sources, but surely there are related sources making similar calculations which will act as a guide.

(3) I have a hard time believing this is an ongoing project-wide annoyance that justifies central correction. If it is, please point to the repeated arguments on the many article discussion pages. (And if we can find those, then they'll tell us what to put here without further argument.)

EEng (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC) P.S. I made my recent bold edit [10] before I saw the comments above -- if I'd seen them I would have waited for more discussion before making that edit.

Since EEng asked for my opinion on a recent edit regarding expressions of durations of time, I thought I would comment here for the benefit of a wider audience. For example, this recently came up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 144#Durations and this conversation may interest Justlettersandnumbers and Kwamikagami who commented there.

The previous stable version of MOSNUM before the recent edits to the "Unit names and symbols" section did not provide any guidance for indicating durations of time. However, MOS:TIME provided as follows:

EEng has now added the following to the table at "Unit names and symbols":

		Unacceptable	Acceptable
Mixed units	Units may be "mixed" in the imperial or US customary systems ...		1 ft 6 in 1 foot 6 inches 1.5 feet 18 in
	... and in expressing time durations ...		1 h 30 min 1.5 h 90 minutes
	... but not normally in SI.	1 m 33 cm	1.33 m 133 cm
	No comma.	6 lb, 3 oz	6 lb 3 oz

The suggested format 1 h 30 min was no previously accommodated. One might argue that MOS:TIME implies that durations of time should only be given in the format H:MM:SS, but I do not find this convincing. Conversely, the "Specific units" units table provides the following:

This implies that durations can be specified in the format H h M min S s, but not H h M m S s or H hr M min S sec. If such variations are to be permitted, then this discrepancy will need to be addressed somehow.

The tables are also vague on whether single-digit values should be padded with a leading zero. I would think that H:MM:SS and M:SS would always be padded except for the first value (i.e., single-digit hours in H:MM:SS and single-digit minutes in M:SS are acceptable) whereas no leading zero would be required for H h M min S s formats, but I'm not sure what sources or style guides have to say on this. —sroc 💬 13:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the s/min/h entires in "specific units" are my creatures as well [11]. At first that was just to deprecate e.g. 5' 30". Then, after poking around articles on record albums, athletics, and so on, I felt safe adding the note re MM:SS formats. (I vaguely recall there was something about athletic timings somewhere already, but I can't find it now. Honestly I'm astounded no one's given me flak about Phineas J. Whoopee.)

Since there's been no comment yet, I hope sroc will permit me to take "original author's prerogative" and collapse my version above in favor of the following, for consideration by my worthy and esteemed fellow editors:

Some points which I'll leave for others to battle out:

• I've left conventional intentionally vague
• And moreover, 5:22 is ambiguous as to whether it's 5min 22s or
• Moons of Jupiter gives 7h 4m 29s, not 7 h 4 m 29 s, and this raises two interesting points

• It's is contrary to the usual rule of space-between-figures-and-units -- but I must say 7h 4m 29s does seem more natural to me.
• Oops! 4 m is wrong, obviously -- it should be 4 min. But that's indeed what Moons of Jupiter says and, again, I must say that in context (and especially in a table, with space at a premium) I can't blame anyone. Should we warn against m for minute, or OK it when bracketed by h and s? I know that answer should be No, but I kind of think it would be nice if we could give it a Yes.

I agree with sroc's suggested rules for zero-padding, though I haven't incorporated them above -- the whole presentation will need to be reworked as it's too clumsy now.

EEng (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• I really do not like the chart that has been added. It was much better expressed in prose. Can we please revert back? RGloucester — ☎ 22:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• I prefer the spacing in the 7 h 4 m 29 s format, as with all other cases, as the units are not part of the numbers. —sroc 💬 23:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• There are too many examples in that table and, yes, that "Triple-Slalom Ski­laufen­unter­schneigel­zum­draus" example is ridiculous to cram in. I also hate the vaguery of "athletic performance times and certain other durations"; if there are specific cases, identify them clearly, otherwise leave it to editors' discretion. —sroc 💬 23:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

How about this:

—sroc 💬 23:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that astronomy often uses the notation similar to 7 h 4 m 29 s because the same book or article may also have occasion to refer to quantities such as 3 m 42 s and 7′ 22″ (the latter referring to angular measurement). Thus it is helpful to avoid using ′ and ″ for time measurement to avoid confusion with angle measurement (especially since the same quantity may be expressed in either time or angle measure). Jc3s5h (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

A format often used for astronomy and navigation is 1^h 23^m 45^s. For one thing, the superscript ^m is unlikely to be mistaken for metres. Unfortunately I don't think we can tuck decimal points under these (or the DMS symbols).—Odysseus1479 06:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I like sroc's version, even Whoopie-less. (But too try to have a sense of humor, roc-man.) EEng (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, EEng. Haven't figured out how to work in the zero-padding thing without going overboard—is it even

necessary to state? —sroc 💬

08:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, shouldn't we avoid doubling-up on how to format durations in both tables (which risk diverging over time)? Should we state it in one location and refer to that as an exception in the other table? —sroc 💬 08:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm installing your text with some slight changes -- take a look. I don't think we need to spell out the zero-padding -- it's not completely unnatural that someone might propose writing a date as 2015-4-6 but I don't see any fights over 3:40:2 for 3 h 40 m 2 s. Editors will also no doubt want to have tables like this

    13h  5m 23s
     4h 23m  2s

I don't see anything wrong with that but I don't think we need to say anything about it either -- editors will work it out for themselves.

There's "overlapping jurisdiction" between (for example) "numbers as words" vs. "chronological items" on (for example) how to write centuries, and sooner or later these need to be resolved. Perhaps I'm dense, but what are the two tables treating time durations -- there's the text we're discussing above and ... what?

EEng (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The two tables I was referring to:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Unit names and symbols:

		Acceptable	Unacceptable
Mixed units	... and in expressing time durations ...	1 h 30 min 1.5 h 90 minutes

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Specific units:

Group	Name	Symbol	Comment
Time	second	s	Do not use ′ (′), ″ (″), apostrophe (') or quote (") for minutes or seconds. Durations (such as athletic records) may be given as 2:07:10 for hours, minutes and seconds, or 3:05 for hours and minutes or minutes and seconds; ensure that the particular format is clear in context. Or (especially in science/​engineering contexts) write e.g. longest time aloft was 7 h 4 m 29 s or rotational period 2 hr 7 min 5.3 sec.
	minute	min
	hour	h

The first says to use 1 h 30 min while the second says 3:05 or 7 h 4 m or 2 hr 7 min. Totally inconsistent. —sroc 💬 09:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Do we need to specify "(such as athletic records)" and "(especially in science/​engineering contexts)"? Is this meant to be prescriptive? Can't we let editors use their intelligence and discretion to select an appropriate format for the context? And shouldn't we acknowledge the superscript format indicated by Odysseus1479? Answers to these questions and more on the next episode of... —sroc 💬 09:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I have a better idea of consolidating these without doubling-up.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Unit names and symbols:

		Acceptable	Unacceptable
Mixed units	... and in expressing time durations ...	1:30:42 1:30[A] 1.5 h 90 minutes 1 hr 30 min 1 h 30 m 7 h 4 m 29 s 2 hr 7 min 5.3 sec 1h 23m 45s	90 mins 1 h 30 min 1 hr 30 m 1+1⁄2 h

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Specific units:

Group	Name	Symbol	Comment
Time	second	s	Do not use ′ (′), ″ (″), apostrophe (') or quote (") for minutes or seconds. See the Unit names and symbols table above for acceptable formats for specifying durations using multiple units (hours, minutes, seconds).
	minute	min
	hour	h

It does seem like there are too many acceptable formats, though. —sroc 💬 23:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

We can actually delete the examples 1.5 h/1+1⁄2 h and 90 minutes/90 mins since they're not actually examples of "mixed units at all". —sroc 💬 23:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This edit incorrectly asserts as an unquestioned fact that "1st century was 1–100, the 17th century was 1601–1700" and so on. Some eminent sources hold that centuries begin in years with the last digits 00 and end in years with the last digits 99 (for years AD). Other sources hold that the issue cannot be resolved. Citations to these sources may be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#When do centuries and millennia begin?

In as much as there is not universal agreement on the matter, this guideline can adopt a convention for use within Wikipedia, but it shouldn't falsely state that universal agreement exists. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty universal as far as I know, but in any case, there is no year zero in any halfway accepted version of the BC/AD system. That's not our decision on Wikipedia. It may have been a decision to adopt the majority viewpoint about how centuries are numbered, but even then we don't have to mention English Wikipedia in the guideline; it's understood that all the advice in this guideline refers to what should be done on English Wikipedia (the inclusion of the word "should" should be more than enough in this case). W. P. Uzer (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Now you're edit warring about it - so please provide a reliable source that claims a year zero exists in the BC/AD system. That's the claim I've changed; the claim about centuries running from 1-100 etc. is made in exactly the same unequivocal way in the version you are restoring. W. P. Uzer (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It is universally accepted that the BC/AD system does not contain a year zero. However, the fact that the Library of Congress was motivated to publish a bibliography about when a century begins is proof there is considerable controversy about whether the lack of a year 0 leads to the conclusion that centuries AD begin in years ending in the digits 01. Also, I don't agree with "it's understood that all the advice in this guideline refers to what should be done on English Wikipedia (the inclusion of the word "should" should be more than enough in this case)." Uzer's wording indicates to me that a statement of fact is being made about when years begin, and the English-speaking population doesn't actually accept that fact.

I do think the wording could be improved by eliminating the part about the English Wikipedia not recognising a year 0. No one recognises a year 0 in conjunction with AD and BC. Perhaps we should write something like this:

The English Wikipedia adopts the convention, for dates AD (or CE), that the 1st century was 1–100, the 17th century was 1601–1700, the second millennium was 1001–2000, and so forth. For dates BC (or BCE) the 1st century was 100–1; the 17th century was 1700–1601, the second millennium was 2000–1001, and so forth.

Jc3s5h (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again I went bold before checking for discussion, but I hope all are pleased [12]. It always amuses me that the 1st century BC was also the last century BC.("The first shall be last, and the last shall be first; and many are cold, but few are frozen.") EEng (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I think EEng's version is slightly better than mine, because his version gets all the controversial points in the sentence that begins "The English Wikipedia defines...", making it clear that all the controversial bits are a Wikipedia convention rather than a statement of fact about English usage. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with W. P. Uzer that, as this is a matter of style within English Wikipedia's Manual of Style, it is unnecessary to state that "The English Wikipedia defines...". I propose:

—sroc 💬 01:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. EEng (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"As there is no

Yeah, if you look at my earlier text you'll see it did carefully avoid giving no-0 as the "reason for" century = 1701-1800. I thought we could get away with sroc's version, but I guess I'll bring in the no-cause-and-effect aspect of my earlier version. EEng (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't quite see how you can logically accept that Year 0 does not exist but argue that the second century began in 100, implying that the first "century" (1–99) was only 99 years long. Whatever, I'm not here to fight a flamewar! —sroc 💬 04:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

At this past turn of the century, there were multiple reports of why the millennium began in 2001 rather than 2000, and this was exactly the reason that was given, every time. — kwami (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If you read this article from the Journal of the British Astronomical Association, you will see that the famous 19th century astronomer William Herschel (and Matthew Dowd, who wrote the article) go with the idea that words mean what the general population decide they mean, notwithstanding logical arguments; the general population, since at least the late 18th century, thinks centuries begin in years ending in 00. Although the proverbial man on the street might not make the following argument, the argument could be advanced in his defense: centuries and millennia are numbered in honor of the Incarnation of Jesus, as estimated by Dionysius Exiguus. But due to the limited amount of his writing that has survived, it isn't clear if he placed the Incarnation in what we would call 2 BC, 1 BC, or AD 1. So we can adopt the position that the first year to be observed is 1 BC and hence the first century ended in 100 99; the general population is happy and the ancient sources don't offer enough information to falsify the choice. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC). Corrected 02:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC).

For the record, I endorse EEng's latest version (with some minor formatting clean-up):

—sroc 💬 09:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I also, though perhaps I would still add BC/BCE explicitly after "century" and "millennium" where applicable. I'm also not sure about the last sentence - this point is duplicated in the next section down, which gives more information but doesn't say anything about "in-article consistency". Perhaps it's not necessary to include it here, and the in-article consistency requirement could be dropped, as there may be reasons to vary within an article (e.g. to conform with general principles about use of figures or words). W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Over the last few months I've been working (in partnership with the tireless sroc‍—‌and pleased that you can join us) to rationalize this page's presentation without changing the effect of the content. Roughly speaking, that entails:

(1) rearranging material so that passages touching on any give point are adjacent (or at least closer);

(2) resolving any previously latent redundancies and contradictions made suddenly evident thereby.

Unfortunately, between (1) and (2) bedtime, or the my employer's slavedriver-ish demands that I do some actual work for him‍—‌imagine!‍—‌sometimes intrude.

Anyway, take a look at my most recent edit on that. I don't think it's necessary to say BC/BCE every time (in the above) because it's apparent in context. The bit about in-article consistency isn't needed because that's a general principle given in the boilerplate at the top of the page.

EEng (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the following material, which is really a warning about selection of source material, not how to present facts in articles. It may belong in some other guideline, but not here, IMO. EEng (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Conversion errors

Conversion errors may occur in general reports, so use the primary sources or the most authoritative sources available. This can help avoid rounding errors, like this: a general report stated that the Eurostar is designed for speeds of "186 mph (299 km/h)". However, the actual design speed was 300 km/h. (The error crept in because the original speed had been converted to 186 mph and then back to km/h.) When common conversion factors are given as quantities, this is a clue that there may be conversion problems. For example, if a number of moons are given estimated diameters in increments of 16 km or 6 miles (implied precision ±0.5 km or mi), it is likely that the estimates in the primary source were in increments of a less-precise 10 miles or 10 km (implied precision ±5 miles or km).

See uncertainty in data above.

Straightforward and accurate conversion may not be possible for loose estimates. For example, if the diameter of a moon is estimated to be 10 miles to within an order of magnitude, any simple conversion to kilometers would introduce a significant loss of accuracy or a gross change in precision. That is because an order-of-magnitude estimate of 10 miles implies a possible range of ≈ 3–30 miles, which would be ≈ 5–50 km. A secondary source will commonly convert such an estimate to a specious 16 km.

EEng (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. This seems to be useful information. Do you mean people should select an alternative source when they round incorrectly? It would be burdensome? You could source it but round differently, just not in quotes. Or would that be an exception? I guess not. Speaking of exceptions (off-topic), see [13] (ok?) and [14] (assume deletion was right, non-exact ok?, and see later edits) comp.arch (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree it may be useful but if so, I believe it belongs somewhere other than in MOS. EEng (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Where should it go? I understand that it's not really stylistic information, but it's relevant to how we present units. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think for the purposes of MOS this should be reduced to a warning not to blindly import the conversions already made by second-hand (note I'm not saying secondary) sources (and I think second-hand is what's meant above by general reports). Beyond that it's too technically involved, and the judgment needed to fix such problems is, I think, beyond what MOS can impart. MOS can point to a nice essay, if someone wants to start one I suppose. EEng (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See contributions by

I did spot checks on 5 random years changed by him. They look like legit changes to me.  Stepho  talk  07:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I understand now what the IP is doing. False alarm.

talk

) 13:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

When seeing MDY or any other than DMY in "Icelandic" (BLP) articles I've taken the liberty to change to DMY (Iceland's date format). Nobody has complained. From section above I'm told

Sorry for the confusion in the section above, I see now that there can be no right date format for eg. Japan related articles, both DMY and MDY could apply. When seeing a mixture of formats used, I would like to have the option of changing to DMY there also without having to search for whether MDY or DMY was first use.. (I've seen both on first use..).. comp.arch (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

My impression from

MOS:DATEFORMAT was that MDY and DMY should not be used in general. The permissible numeric date format (YYYY-MM-DD only) should be restricted to references and tables, where it makes sense. In prose the date should always be written in full and will thus be unambiguous. Have I missed something? Archon 2488 (talk

) 11:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I assume you meant "MDY or DMY should be used in general"? That is not the issue I had. It's which one. See below, and am I allowed to change eg. MDY to DMY, (possibly when both/either is used (on first use)). comp.arch (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that one comes upon an article with mixed date formats, it is a pain in the neck to try to figure out if it once had a consistent, established date format. But that is the rule and it would require a well-advertised RFC to change it. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I understood the previous poster to mean "MDY" and "DMY" to refer to dates being written in full. 25 Feburary 2014 is DMY, and February 25, 2014 is MDY. AFAIK Wikipedia accepts both of these formats, but doesn't encourage switching from one to the other without a reason. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I see. This makes more sense, but it strikes me that when it's written out in full it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. So long as there is only one numeric format allowed, and it's used only in a few special contexts (in particular, nonsense like 2/3/14 must be completely disallowed for obvious reasons) then there's no reason for disagreement. Just pick one of the two arbitrary long formats and stick with it, which is what

WP:DATERET seems to imply. I'm not even consistent in my own life as to whether I use MDY or DMY for the written date. Archon 2488 (talk

) 15:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We had this a while back and some editors maintained that if a nation wasn't English-speaking, there was no national variety of English and therefore whatever format the first editor used was the one the article should stick with. I think that's bizarre and that date format is like units of measurement and currency symbols - we should use whatever that nation uses. --Pete (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite sympathetic to this suggestion. My philosophy is that the English Wikipedia shouldn't just be for native English speakers (indeed, many of our contributors and readers are not native speakers) but it should be for everyone who can speak English. An odd peculiarity of defining "English-speaking countries" is that you can't necessarily go by a) official languages (then the USA wouldn't count since it doesn't have an official language) or b) majority use (since South Africa wouldn't count, because although English is an official language and is the de facto lingua franca, it's the native language of a fairly small minority of the population).

English is perhaps unique in that it's a language with significantly more second-language speakers than first-language speakers. In particular, there are countries like Sweden and Iceland in which nearly 100% of the adult population speak English to an advanced or near-native level. It seems a bit arbitrary to exclude these people from considerations of "strong national ties" as far as writing style is concerned. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point. —sroc 💬 22:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If we allow them, then we need to allow all, including China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hungary, Mongolia, and Lithuania. They're a third of the world's population, yet the MOS disallows their YMD format. I've we're not allowed to use Lithuanian-style dates for Lithuania, then there's no good argument for using Icelandic-style dates for Iceland. — kwami (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't use YMD in written English. This is the English Wikipedia. Therefore we don't use YMD in our text. Occasionally in tables, which is an acceptable usage, mainly because YMD is self-sorting. However, we use both DMY and MD,Y in written English, and I think it is just common sense and consistency to treat a nation's preferred choice of these two formats in the same way as we treat a nation's choice of units of measurement etc. --Pete (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If we were going to consider the date format preferences of countries like India and China because they have many people who write English as a second language, we would have to discover what their preferred date format is when they are writing English. That could be tricky to find out. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

In the case of India, not at all. --Pete (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and "screw China, they're too weird" is not a very encyclopedic approach. Either we follow countries' preferred date formats, or we don't. — kwami (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily - we might choose to follow countries' preferred formats if they correspond to one of the accepted English formats, but not otherwise. The Chinese use YMD, which is not an accepted English format (in ordinary prose), so we wouldn't follow it. I don't know (but someone might) what format Chinese people tend to use when writing English - if it turns out they have a clear preference for MD,Y, for example, then we could adopt that format for articles about China. Similarly, if it turns out they have a clear preference for American spellings over British ones, then we could aim to use such spellings in articles about China. Personally I don't think it really matters that much, but such criteria seem at least more logical than just randomly following the preferences of whoever started the article. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that allowing the question to be settled by whoever happened to submit the first version of the article isn't ideal — as a rule, it will invariably produce an inconsistent mishmash of different formats, even on different articles about the same topic, related to the same country. It's a pragmatic way to break a stalemate, but not a recipe for a consistent style.

It is desirable to follow local usage if possible: nobody could argue that it's acceptable for an article about France to give distances primarily in miles, for example, using the excuse that the article was originally submitted by an American. So if, as I suspect, there were a clear preference among people from Continental Europe to use DMY (French invariably uses this format, e.g. "le 1er mai 2011" so I assume that French-speakers would find it natural to use this format in English — also German, "am 1. Mai 2011") then I think that it should generally be used in articles about that country. To my knowledge, MDY isn't very common outside the USA, so it's not obvious why it belongs in non-USA-related articles (likewise, the imperial-first unit presentation style isn't generally used for non-USA-related articles). If a particular way of writing the prose date isn't used in any recognised variety of written English then it shouldn't be used ("on 2011 May 1"). Similarly, articles on China don't typically use Chinese customary units, because they're generally not used in an English-language context. India, on the other hand, should be an easy case, because English is an official language and is very widely used in the country as a lingua franca. Same applies to most Commonwealth countries, such as Nigeria, Kenya and Singapore: in all these countries, I think, there is a preference for DMY.

Summary: per

• Logical, and I'm not arguing that we shouldn't pursue this to create greater consistency among a series of articles (as well as within an article), but it's currently a free-for-all here at present. I agree also that most other countries and languages from Slavonic to Latin cultures are natively "one-endian". Asian cultures are the exception in that they are "the other-endian". It's a humongous mess because I often see translated texts where these native dmy, for example Cinco de Mayo, are rendered into mdy format. Just looks weird, and perhaps we ought to change it. Very big job, though. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

End of discussion (for me if

Concrete proposal: "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the United States, this is month before day; for most others, it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently."

be change to:

"Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular country should generally use the more common date format for that nation (of the allowed date formats). .." (meaning DMY (or MDY but not YMD).

or in case you do not want a "should" for non-English (having to look up date format):

"Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the United States, this is month before day; for most others, it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently. Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular non-English-speaking country may be changed to the more common date format for that nation (of the allowed date formats)."

Good suggestion. I favour the second - "may be changed" - wording. If an article is in the "wrong" format for a nation - Mozambique (say) - it is not a big deal which format is used. Either will be understood. Not all of us wince when we see the "wrong" format being used. But for the wincers, it would be nice to have the "may" option open, if they feel like it maybe, rather than opening things up for datenazis to use that "should" as a big stick. --Pete (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree - second version is good. But wording should be more precise than just "more common date format for that nation" - does it mean the more common date format used by people from that nation when writing English, or the format that more closely parallels the format used by people from that nation when writing in their language? (And in that case, which format more closely parallels the Chinese YMD: is it MDY because it puts month before day, or is it DMY because it puts M in the middle?) W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

My rule of thumb has always been to change the localisation on my computer to the nation in question and then see what date format is set as the default. Maybe that's putting too much faith in the guys from Apple or Microsoft or Linux or whatever, but they seem to be in agreement, and presumably they are aiming to make their customers in the target nation satisfied. Whatever, I see that as the right date format for that nation. For places, like China, that use a date format we can't use in written English, I think whatever the initial date format was should prevail, because if we allow open slather, style warriors are going to colonise that article and then defend their turf. --Pete (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Another suggestion "Articles on topics with strong ties to a country should generally use the date format that is more common there. In most countries it is day before month but in the United States, it is month before day. For articles on Canada, use either format but be consistent."

I think this covers all bases, with enough wiggle room in "should generally use" to keep the date Nazis at bay. Michael Glass (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

In my proposal I was trying to include Iceland (that uses DMY) and other non-YMD countries. Your proposal would allow eg. China/Japan that use YMD. English Wikipedia doesn't allow YMD (except for eg. references). comp.arch (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I had not considered countenancing YMD as this is not used in normal English prose. I saw it as a decision between MDY and MDY. Perhaps this would be clearer:

"Articles should generally use the day month year format for almost all countries and the month day year format for United States articles. For articles on Canada, use either format but be consistent."

That might be clearer. It has the advantage of being slightly shorter again and it presents the choice as being between DMY and MDY. Michael Glass (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have any consensus here. I see two problems with suggestions above:

• Listing nations and formats within the MoS could get cumbersome. It's not just the US that uses md,y - other US-influenced nations have it as a preferred standard. Many are like Canada where either format is acceptable. We could list them all somewhere, but it would be an ongoing problem.
• We need to specify that the only two formats we use in text are dmy and md,y otherwise articles on China and similar will sprout ymd formats.

How about. "Articles on topics with strong ties to a country should generally use the date format that is more common there. In most countries it is day before month but in the United States, it is month before day. For articles on Canada, use either format but be consistent within an article. The year-month-day format is not generally used within English text; where a nation (eg. China) uses this format, either day month year or month day, year is acceptable."

This could be phrased more elegantly, perhaps? --Pete (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've discovered the {{#formatdate:}} code is meant to format dates according to the user's preferences. For example:

• {{#formatdate:20 March 2014}} → 20 March 2014
• {{#formatdate:March 20, 2014}} → March 20, 2014
• {{#formatdate:2014-03-20}} → 2014-03-20

I stumbled upon an article that used this code for some dates but not others. The wiki markup had all dates in MDY format, but some magically appeared in DMY format thanks to my preferences, resulting in a mix of both date formats—contrary to

The solution is simply to use {{#formatdate:}} for all dates so the user's preference applies to all dates; or remove it so that the format used in the wikitext is applied. The thing is, editors whose preferences are set either to "No preference" or to the same format as that used in the article—which will probably be most editors—will not see the difference when they read articles or preview edits. I only noticed anything was amiss because I had a different preference set.

I couldn't find any good documentation on {{#formatdate:}} but it doesn't seem to cope well with trailing commas after MDY dates per

• A comma should go after {{#formatdate:March 20, 2014}}, in MDY format.
  • With DMY format preference: → A comma should go after 20 March 2014, in MDY date format. N (comma shouldn't be there)
  • With MDY format preference: → A comma should go after March 20, 2014, in MDY date format. Y

• A comma should go after {{#formatdate:March 20, 2014,}} in MDY format.
  • With DMY format preference: → A comma should go after March 20, 2014, in MDY format. N (wrong format)
  • With MDY format preference: → A comma should go after March 20, 2014, in MDY format. Y

(In the above case, formatdate doesn't recognise the date and reproduces the raw text without adjusting the format.)

• A comma shouldn't go after {{#formatdate:20 March 2014}} in DMY format.
  • With DMY format preference: → A comma shouldn't go after 20 March 2014 in DMY format. Y
  • With MDY format preference: → A comma shouldn't go after March 20, 2014 in DMY format. N (should be comma after year)

With the above in mind:

1. Should this be documented in MOSNUM, in particular, advising either to use it consistently throughout an article or not at all in order to comply with MOS:DATEUNIFY?
2. Should we recommend using {{#formatdate:}} generally? I suspect not given the above bugs.
3. Is there another template that works better? If so, should we endorse this instead?

—sroc 💬 12:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

#formatdate isn't quite the same as the now-derided autolinking [15] but I suspect you'll run into similar resistance. Seeing a variety of date fmts, and varied spelling, may be part of the cost this wonderful global village of ours, with people in native garb holding hands on a hilltop: "I'd like to teach the world to sing..." and so on. EEng (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't say? —sroc 💬 14:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah. It's been around for years, but suffers from some of the same problems as the ill-fated date-autoformatting. One is that it clutters up the edit-mode, and I'm not holding my breath yet for a widespread, viable Visual Editor (even then, experienced editors will probably use edit-mode for many years hence. Another is difficulties with date-range typography. And critically, in display mode it stops editors from spotting where date formatting is inconsistent within an article, since we would see what our readers were seeing. I could never see the big deal about editors' coping with two different, within-article-consistent formats. We have basically a binary system of spelling, and a binary system of units/conversions. We have two acceptable sentence-level dashes – open en and—closed em, article-consistent. Tony (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that inconsistency in date formats can go under the radar when #formatdate is used inconsistently and the editor doesn't realise because of their own preferences. Should we advise that #formatdate should be depricated? Or to take care to use it consistently within each article? The latter still risks other editors coming along and adding dates without realising the #formatdate lurks elsewhere within the same article, and they could innocently follow whatever format appears on their screen according to their preferences, even if it doesn't match the default format in the wikicode? —sroc 💬 14:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Formatting according to user's preference has never worked, and a much more elaborate system would be required to make it work. Consider the case "the event occurred March 20, 2014, in Amsterdam." If it were written in the other date format, it would be "the event occurred 20 March 20 2014 20 March 2014 in Amsterdam." The date formatting code would have to determine whether the year was followed by punctuation, and if not, insert a comma after the year when displaying the MDY format.

{{#formatdate:date|format}} is a magic word, not a template. I'm not sure, but I think it is part of the MediaWiki software, and might be used in wikis that are not even sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation. The fact that it operates within the English Wikipedia does not mean anyone is encouraged to use it. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Corrected 2:01, 21 March 2014 (UT).

I don't think we should encourage the use of "20 March 20 2014" either. 8^p

The #formatdate magic word does get used in article—well, at least one. Do we know how widespread it is? Is it worth documenting, or should we just remove it where we find it and explain it in an edit summary each time? —sroc 💬 22:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please, no! This
  WP:ENGVAR for a few more years, so fiddling with some dates is just not worthwhile. Johnuniq (talk
  ) 23:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that the above edit actually changed the article text to He said on May 29 that he had received... or, as I see it, He said on 29 May that he had received..., so at least it's consistent with the others. But happy to remove #formatdate from the article as long as it is removed throughout the article. —sroc 💬 00:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• We have a reasonable !solution now. It may not be perfect, but it is elegant. Adding more codewords and syntax and brackets would just make editing more horrific for new editors, and is more carp to go wromg for those of us with more years. Let's keep it simple. --Pete (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not advocating that it be used ("I suspect not given the above bugs"). Still no answer to my question ("Is it worth documenting, or should we just remove it where we find it and explain it in an edit summary each time?"). —sroc 💬 00:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if we could create an edit filter that would prevent any edit that contains it from being saved, the same way that it's impossible to mention any URL on the blacklist in an article? Jc3s5h (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should go that far. There may be useful purposes for it. But we should perhaps discourage it in the guideline. —sroc 💬 02:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• There are over 20 million people who read Wikipedia but only about 130 thousand active registered users. [16] You must have set a date preference and be logged in for the auto date formatting to work. You want to add a wiki code wrapper around each date so less than 0.1% of the Wikipedia readers can see dates in their preferred format. This feature makes editing more difficult for 100% of editors. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A good point, leading me to think: Could this not be done for date formats automatically without a template in the MediaWiki server software (and maybe for some other things?) [If we worry about the speed penalty some clever caching could be used.] It's not like there are that many date formats that need to be detected. Quotes would need to be ecempted (at least by an overrideable default. and BLP? and other

WP:STRONGNAT pages?). comp.arch (talk

) 18:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the part about automatic date formatting never having worked in the history of Wikipedia, whether you are a registered user or not? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't read through the discussion above (or in the past) only immediatly above what I answered. What I mean could you write "bla bla 20 January 2014 bls bla" or ""bla bla January 20, 2014 bls bla", no templates/"magic word"s and get it displayed exactly as written by default and when edited, but for those who override the defaults get either one (or even YYYY-MM-DD). comp.arch (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if it worked (which it probably quite often wouldn't), what would be the point? W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

rpm is often used in sources. Its page also says RPM (and r/min), that I've never. I do not want to go changing to upper case or advocate that. Or r/m.. Rely on "break all rules"? [Similar applies to ppcm (should also be uppercase per MOS, that I don't care too much about. Regarding PPCM I would prefer that it be used if sources would universally but they don't then PPI should be used (or ppi if allowed).] comp.arch (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The automobile project explicitly says Wikipedia should always use lowercase rpm on automobile pages (

WP:AUN). The Revolutions per minute page also uses lowercase rpm except it makes a single mention that uppercase RPM is one of the forms found in the real world. There is a difference between a policy/guide for usage on WP and an article that says what is used in the real world.  Stepho  talk

  23:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, I assume projects (eg. automobile), shouldn't explicitly require breaking the MOS. That it it has to allow it (or they change their project guideline). Even if technically it is an abbreviation, just since it predominantly in lower case in sources for cars, vinyl, hard drives etc. I will probably add it as an explicit exception in the MOS. comp.arch (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw above: The formats we currently have as acceptable are:

1. "1920x1080"
2. "1920 pixels × 1080 pixels"
3. "1920 by 1080" (if no actual units), "1920 by 1080 pixels", and "1920 pixels by 1080 pixels"

I didn't want to read through the whole thing, just liked to point out that number 2 is wrong (in general). I would say only "1920 × 1080 pixels" is ok as it equals 2.073.600 pixels which is true, while number 2 would give as many pixels². You could argue that a square-pixel is just a pixel but this is not equivalent in general. Square pixels are probably pretty universal by now but non-square pixels have been used in the past. Then number 2 would be misleading as really you should only derive the count of pixels from the numbers. What works for cm doesn't work for pixels. comp.arch (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

For those not technologically inclined, substitute the word "tiles" (as in "tiles on a kitchen floor") for "pixels". Both tiles and pixels are two-dimensional objects, but they are being used here as a measure of length. That's what makes the expression confusing, troublesome, or ambiguous to the mathematically-minded.

Would you say that a kitchen floor, measured in tiles, is "10 tiles × 20 tiles"? A regular person might, and perhaps most importantly, everyone would know what that person meant.* A mathematician might quibble, but the meaning in English is clear.

*Unless, of course, the tiles were not square, in which case nobody would know what was going on....– Jonesey95 (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The shape of the tiles is irrelevant; if the tiles are arranged 10 by 20, there are 200 tiles in total. —sroc 💬 08:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Although it is clear what someone means when he says "10 tiles × 20 tiles", this is technically wrong, because this would mean "200 tiles²", which is nonsensical. This person would mean to say "200 tiles". The same goes for pixels. This is very different from the situation with meters: 3 × 4 m means a total length or distance of 12 m composed of three smaller lengths/distances of 4 m each, whereas 3 m × 4 m means a square area of 12 m². --JorisvS (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone might be using the tile, or pixel, as a unit of length. And reasonably enough, since there isn't another unit of length that they could use, unless we invent the "tile-side" or "pixel-side". If we are to be this pedantic, then it isn't any more correct either to say "10 by 20 tiles", since literally that means either the same thing (with one instance of the noun "tiles" undergoing ellipsis), or a collection of tiles each of which measures 10 by 20 (in some units). W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

And he would be incorrectly doing that, because a pixel is really a two-dimensional object. And although the intention is okay, a professional encyclopedia should not accept such formally incorrect statements. Or in the Wikipedia spirit, when someone comes by and notices it, (s)he can correct it. --JorisvS (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

But what would (s)he correct it to? As I pointed out, the version with only one "pixels" is also "formally incorrect". (I still prefer it, but just because its more compact, not because I consider it any less incorrect. Or I should say, I don't consider either version to be incorrect, because both are being used in what has become an ordinary meaning within the English language. Would you consider it incorrect to say that an image is "200 pixels high" or "200 pixels wide"?) W. P. Uzer (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Which is also formally incorrect? "10 × 20 tiles"? If you mean that, then, actually, that is formally (mathematically) correct. As for "200 pixels high", I'd read that as short for "having a height of 200 pixels", or the more lengthy "[said of a 2D object] whose dimension in the vertical direction is 200 pixels". --JorisvS (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

So you see, you and everyone else do in fact use pixels as a unit of length. So there really isn't any problem here. We can recommend the more compact form if you like, but only because it's more compact, not that it's more correct. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really, I have done a poor job of really spelling it out. "[said of a 2D object] whose dimension in the vertical direction is 200 pixels" → "[said of a 2D object] consisting of 200 pixels in a row in the vertical direction". --JorisvS (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it means, but what people say (and what you said yourself when you were not paying sufficient attention to avoiding undermining your argument) is "200 pixels high" or similar phrases in which pixels are effectively used as a unit of length. There's no reason why this ordinary English usage should be a problem unless we arbitrarily decide to make it one. W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I never told you that there was a problem with that. You brought it up. As for "10 × 20 tiles", that's really the only (formally) correct format (well, and "10 by 20 tiles", but that's really just writing out the "×"), and note that it is also the shortest. To come back at something you said earlier, a "collection of tiles each of which measures 10 by 20" would have to be written "10-by-20 tiles"; "10 by 20 tiles" would be incorrect for this. --JorisvS (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

But if there's no problem with "200 pixels high", then there's no problem with using pixels as a unit of length, so there's no problem with saying 10 pixels by 20 pixels (or tiles by tiles). Saying "10 by 20 pixels" is just shorthand for that; I don't see any interpretation that would make it "formally correct" otherwise. But I agree (and have already said) that it has the advantage of shortness, and it's the one I would use. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said above in the comparison with meters. Even if used as a kind of unit of length, then the first "pixels" can be elided without problem, which then gives the mathematically correct notation again. And this is preferable. No problem left. --JorisvS (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

All right, so we agree which notation we would use, so we can leave it there. I remain unpersuaded that there was a problem to start with, or that one version is any more "mathematically correct" than the other, but I don't plan to argue about it any more. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that

(crickets)

It isn't abundantly clear, but I suspect this refers to which format is used relevant to a particular location. For example, the UK uses 24-hour time, so articles about the UK should probably use this format. I think the same guidance for DMY or MDY date formats could apply here: unless there is a reason attached to a particular country, follow whichever format is used by the first editor. —sroc 💬 22:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought. So I guess the rule should be the same as for dates: try to follow national usage where possible. I think a strong preference for the 12-hour clock is largely an American idiosyncracy, although it is still used to varying degrees in the rest of the English-speaking world, at least informally. More formal usage outside the USA tends to prefer 24-hour, and it's easier to parse and less ambiguous, so I'd say go with that. But in any case, "context determines" is uselessly vague as a guide to which format to use, and it should be improved. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether the 24-hour format is easier to parse or not depends on what you're used to. I'm more used to the 12-hour format and I'm not American. I'm not aware of any preference one way or other in terms of formality. As for ambiguity, neither is inherently ambiguous as long as you take care to avoid potential ambiguity, admittedly, though, more care is needed with the the 12-hour format. Jimp 09:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think context is more than location. In the UK we use the 24 hour clock where it helps - scientific and technical purposes, transport times, military usage, and I suspect the same is true in most places. I would never say "meet you at 16 O'clock" - newspapers will generally use AM and PM, again except where they are striving to be (or look) accurate, such as a chronology of an event or disaster. In horse racing we talk about the 3:55 at Lingfield. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 18:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC).

Sorry, my bad. I lept to a conclusion on the UK using 24-hour clocks because that's what I invariably see on television (BBC news broadcasts, comedy programmes, etc.) so it seemed to be the norm. My apologies. —sroc 💬 22:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

How should large amounts (that cannot / should not be rounded) be formatted? I can think of a number of options to write the amount: one million, two hundred and thirty-four thousand, five hundred and sixty-seven, eighty-nine pence;

• £1 234 567.89
• £1,234,567.89
• £1, 234, 567.89

There are probably other valid formats for presenting them... Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

See

WP:DECIMAL - £1,234,567.89 is correct. Unless there's some reason I'm not aware of to make an exception for currency? Kahastok talk

10:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers

WP:MOSNUM#Grouping of digits should apply too. Should these be incorporated here or is it fine left fragmented? Jamesmcmahon0 (talk

) 22:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)