Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive/Complete rewrite of Units of Measurements (June 2008)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Overview of the rewrite

This is the archive of the rewrite of the Units of Measurements section. This spanned over two months and gained consensus at 10 (11) vs. 2(3) on June 7, 2008.
For: Headbomb, Greg L, Fnagaton, Pyrotec, Marty Goldberg, SWTPC6800, MJCdetroit, Franci Schonken, Jimp, Rilak. Altough Dfmclean did not vote, he gave implicit endorsement by agreeing on every colour box.
Against: Woodstone, Thunderbird2. Altough he did not vote, Seraphimblade would probably have voted against considering his opposition to the deprecation of IEC units.

Reasons for opposition were opposition to the partial deprecation of IEC units. Opposition was asked repeatedly to provided examples of how deprecation went against the spirit of the MOS, but failed to provide any. Other than personal opposition to partial deprecation, previous votes were brought up to support "lack of consensus", but the reasons given for the previous votes failed to convince editors that deprecation of IEC units is unsound or that IEC units are compatible with the spirit of the MOS.

This was written after archiving, as a post-commentary to give newcomers a quick-recap. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 18:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Complete rewrite of section 4 (Greenbox)

Initial remarks

Units of measurements (Greenbox)

Figure of Merit - Rewrite of section 4 (Greenbox)

Degree of support
User 5 4 3 2 1 0
Greg L (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC) X[1]
Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC) X [2]
Jimp ×[3]
Rilak X
SWTPC6800 X
Thunderbird2 (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC) X[4] X
Fnagaton 19:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC) X [5]
MJCdetroit 15:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC) X [6]
Woodstone (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC) X [7]
Pyrotec 21:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC) X
New user

Discussion of “Vote Comments”

Discussion of the rewrite of section 4

Resolved or old discussion

Unresolved debates

IEC prefixes: impact of section 4

Follow Current Literature (Redbox)

Figure of Merit—FCL (Redbox)

Degree of support
User 5 4 3 2 1 0
Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 20:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC) X[1]
Jimp ×[2]
Woodstone (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC) x[3]
Greg L (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC) X[4]
Fnagaton 08:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC) X[5]
Pyrotec 21:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC) X[6]

Discussion of “Vote Comments”

Discussion

Scientific notation and uncertainty (Bluebox)

Figure of Merit—Scientific notation and uncertainty (Bluebox)

Degree of support
User 5 4 3 2 1 0
Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 20:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC) X[1]
Greg L (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC) X[2]
Thunderbird2 (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC) X[3]
Woodstone (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC) X[4]
Pyrotec 22:26 05 June 2008 (UTC) X[5]
New user

Discussion of Scientific notation (bluebox)

IEC Prefixes (Purplebox)

Figure of Merit—Binary prefixes (Purplebox)

Degree of support
User 5 4 3 2 1 0
Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 05:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC) X[1]
Greg L (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC) X[2]
Fnagaton 19:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC) X[3]
Woodstone (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC) X[4]
SWTPC6800 (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC) X
Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC) X[5]
MJCdetroit 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC) X [6]
Thunderbird2 (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC) X[7]
Dfmclean 19:00, 28 May 2008 X[8]
Pyrotec 22:35 05 June 2008 X[9]
New user

Discussion of “Vote Comments”

Comments on binary prefix

Google hits for last year pages
(May 212008)
prefix Standard IEC %Standard %IEC
K 267 000 3 540 98.7 1.3
M 433 000 3430 99.2 0.8
G 674 000 4 000 99.4 0.6
T 283 000 1 100 99.6 0.4
P 468 000 344 99.9 0.1
Z 8 450 219 98.5 2.5
Yotta 6 960 259 96.4 4.6
Total 2 140 410 12 892 99.4 0.6


Google scholar hits (all years)
(May 312008)
prefix Standard IEC %Standard %IEC
K 12,700 47 99.6 0.4
M 35,400 29 99.92 0.08
G 66,000 26 99.96 0.04
T 18,700 11 99.94 0.06
P 3,020 7 99.8 0.2
Z 94 1 98.9 1.1
Yotta 56 2 96.6 4.4
Total 135,970 123 99.91 0.09

Target upload date of Wednesday (June 4th)


General comments

State of the re-write

Uploading the rewrite (June 7th)

Votes on proposal

If this get no response by Saturday morning, or that only a minority of people feel that this does not maximizes the level of agreement, I'll upload this text as is (minus perhaps copy-editing) unless there are new developments, in which case I'll incorporate these developments as well. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 18:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • So... even if no one at all had voted on this by Saturday, you would have taken it upon yourself to upload it?? I think you are overly anxious here. This is consensus-driven, not schedule-driven. See my below comments. But I suggest you start by uploading those sections (colorboxes) that have a clear consensus now. It is wrong to attempt to drag the whole greenbox and all its subboxes into a wholesale replacement of MOSNUM on the pretense that little to no response at all constitutes an unspoken OK to move forwards. Greg L (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This received over 500 edits in the last week (with none yesterday). If there was no edits on this by Saturday morning that would've meant everyone was dead. I said that to make sure people had an incentive to respond more than anything else, since no one said a thing in the last day or two. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 22:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It looks like nobody has posted substantive reasons to object to the upload. Headbomb would you like to do the honours? :) By the way, I would like to be the first to say congratulations to you for managing to tackle an issue like this at MOSNUM. ;) Once the upload is done I would advocate archiving all of the sections of this talk relating to this topic. This will make this page a lot shorter. :) Fnagaton 08:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I would certainly like to do the honours :P, but I'll wait until later today when the edit traffic is lower so I can archive things properly. I've also yet to read all the edits made this morning. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 14:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Good luck. I'd say any votes about "there is no consensus" belongs in the personal opinion section because the claim is unsubstantiated given the evidence we have here. Fnagaton 15:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - The text maximizes the level of agreement between all parties

I, the undersigned, support the uploading of this text. While I may not be happy with everything in the text, I realize that my voice is only one of many, and I agree this text maximizes the level of agreement between all parties as of the time of my signing, and will facilitate later revisions of the MOSNUM.


Oppose - The text maximizes the level of agreement between all parties

I, the undersigned, oppose the uploading of this text. While I may not be happy with everything in the text, I understand that my personal feelings are inconsequential here and the reason of my opposition has nothing to do with my personal feelings on this. I simply do not think that this text maximizes the level of agreement between all parties as of the time of my signing.

  • Oppose: Thunderbird seems to be opposing because he feels this does not have consensus. - Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς)
    15:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Woodstone (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC). This whole voting process was made into an absurdity by repeated modification of votes by others than the voter. I oppose uploading because by the malicious conduct of some of the participants, a proper process was blocked. I wonder if they will censor this comment as well. I oppose parts of the content:
  • because the bullet explicitly banning IEC does not have consensus and is an unnecessary form of censorship
  • because the criterion of "familiarity" is too vague and given undue weight (especially in the summary).
  • because only one unit is singled out for being banned. Where is the statement explicitly banning all other "unfamiliar "units? Like fathom or cubit?
  • Oppose:

Support - Personal opinion

I, the undersigned, support the uploading of this text, because I personally feel that this text is adequate. That this text does or does not maximize the level of agreement is inconsequential to me. I also understand that, because of my lack of concern for agreement between all parties, my vote will be disregarded.

  • Support:
  • Support:
  • Support:


Oppose - Personal opinion

I, the undersigned, oppose the uploading of this text, because I personally feel that this text is inadequate. That this text does or does not maximize the level of agreement is inconsequential to me. I also understand that, because of my lack of concern for agreement between all parties, my vote will be disregarded.

  • Oppose:
  • Oppose:
  • Oppose:


Headbomb, I leave for you to decide which box this fits in. I oppose statements that do not carry a broad consensus. I oppose guidelines that include such statements. Thunderbird2 (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments on votes

Is there consensus for the promotion or deprecation of IEC units?

from Headbomb's talk page