User:Garamond Lethe/sandbox/kph draft rfc

Rfc: Ording of abbreviation use vs. symbolic use of "km/h"[edit]

Summary: Multiple contemporary reliable sources list km/h an abbreviation (a use that goes back to 1898). Beginning in 1948 standardization efforts defined "km/h" as a language-independent symbol, and multiple contemporary reliable sources attest to the statement that the standardized symbol is not an abbreviation.

The point of conflict is between the following two opinions:

1. "km/h" began as an abbreviation and continues to be used as an abbreviation. While the symbolic interpretation exists, it is limited to very specific areas of science and governmental regulation. Thus, the abbreviation should be discussed first. Even if this is not the case, the flow of the article will be improved by taking a historical approach, thus the abbreviation discussion should precede the symbol discussion.

2. While "km/h" began as a definition, it is now has internationally-accepted standardized definition as a symbol that has (by and large) superceded its use as an abbreviation. The symbolic use is taught internationally as part of the metric system, and the abbreviation is limited to a handful of areas in the English-speaking world where conversion to the metric system has not yet taken place. Thus, the standardized symbol should be discussed first, followed by its history as an abbreviation.

This editor (GL) considers this dispute unlikely to be resolved by appealing to further reliable sources. Ultimately, this is a judgement call and a sound, useful article will result using either approach. As two editors have not been able to come to an agreement as to the direction of the article, and as DRN has not been effective, the parties have chosen to escalate the dispute to an RFC. Garamond Lethe 19:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)