Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers: Difference between revisions
→Symbols for dot and micro: mu. Metric prefixes long precede Unicode; they are not defined as Unicode characters. |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) |
||
(17 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
:::::Many thanks for both of your replies. It was measurements that I had in mind as I contribute largely to biology-related subjects. I certainly would write 5-7 kg, or 2–7 km, but that is not what the guide advises. It would look strange stating that "the smaller subspecies weighs from five to seven kilograms and the larger subspecies 10-14kg." Following from your earlier lead, [[User:SMcCandlish|'''Mac''']], I have been [[WP:BOLD]] on the article page. [[User:William Harris|<span style="color: green">William Harris •</span>]] [[User talk:William Harris|<span style="color: green">(talk) •</span>]] 20:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC) |
:::::Many thanks for both of your replies. It was measurements that I had in mind as I contribute largely to biology-related subjects. I certainly would write 5-7 kg, or 2–7 km, but that is not what the guide advises. It would look strange stating that "the smaller subspecies weighs from five to seven kilograms and the larger subspecies 10-14kg." Following from your earlier lead, [[User:SMcCandlish|'''Mac''']], I have been [[WP:BOLD]] on the article page. [[User:William Harris|<span style="color: green">William Harris •</span>]] [[User talk:William Harris|<span style="color: green">(talk) •</span>]] 20:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::::{{ping|William Harris}} Where do you think the wording needs clarification? I'm not sure where your "not what the guide advises" is coming from. [[MOS:NUM#Number ranges]] doesn't suggest anything like "five to seven kg" [or "... kilograms" or "... kilogrammes"], and only illustrates ranges with figures. If anything, we might need to clarify that one should write "five to seven survey respondents out of ten", when the numbers are not something we normally always put in figures (scores, votes, measurements before units, etc.), since the section doesn't actually illustrate this usage. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 22:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)<p>PS: I think I've IDed the problem, and have addressed it under separate cover at [[#Missing point in "Numbers as figures or words" section]], below. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 22:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)</p> |
::::::{{ping|William Harris}} Where do you think the wording needs clarification? I'm not sure where your "not what the guide advises" is coming from. [[MOS:NUM#Number ranges]] doesn't suggest anything like "five to seven kg" [or "... kilograms" or "... kilogrammes"], and only illustrates ranges with figures. If anything, we might need to clarify that one should write "five to seven survey respondents out of ten", when the numbers are not something we normally always put in figures (scores, votes, measurements before units, etc.), since the section doesn't actually illustrate this usage. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 22:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)<p>PS: I think I've IDed the problem, and have addressed it under separate cover at [[#Missing point in "Numbers as figures or words" section]], below. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 22:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)</p> |
||
:::::::Regarding: '''Numbers as figures or words, Generally, in article text:''' "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words." We now turn our attention to the meaning of this word "general" - [https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/general (of a rule, principle, etc.) true for all or most cases]. What I am referring to does not appear under the '''Notes and exceptions''' nor does it appear under '''Number ranges'''. Somewhere, it should. [[User:William Harris|<span style="color: green">William Harris •</span>]] [[User talk:William Harris|<span style="color: green">(talk) •</span>]] 00:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Non-breaking spaces == |
== Non-breaking spaces == |
||
Line 194: | Line 196: | ||
::::Please review the discussion at [[Template talk:Convert#Micro symbols]] where reasons for using mu not micro are given. Extracts: [[Micro-#Symbol encoding in character sets]] + [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Specific units|WP:MOSNUM]] + "in every case that I checked, the encoding is U+03BC". [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 22:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC) |
::::Please review the discussion at [[Template talk:Convert#Micro symbols]] where reasons for using mu not micro are given. Extracts: [[Micro-#Symbol encoding in character sets]] + [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Specific units|WP:MOSNUM]] + "in every case that I checked, the encoding is U+03BC". [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 22:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::::Skimming that, I don't find it compelling. I too was involved in Unicode mailing lists back when, and many decisions where typical, arbitrary (in the negative sense) "design by committee" gaffes, while many were not and were pointedly about separating symbols from natural-language characters that look like them. One person's anecdote about what they remember about what they thought might have been the intent back when, well, it just isn't very meaningful. What other people are using in their house style isn't very informative here, either, especially when the characters are essentially identical. (This is a bit like the dash-versus-hyphen-versus-minus and x-versus-×-in-math disputations; it really doesn't matter one whit that the average publisher just uses "-" and "x"; we use "−" and "×" in a maths context because they're the functionally correct characters to use, even if the average person neither notices nor cares.) There's a Unicode character specifically for ''micro-'' reduced to a symbol, it has {{em|not}} been deprecated, we have no indication it will ever be deprecated (any more than will IPA symbols that also coincide visually with natural-language ones in various writing systems), and it has no connection to rendering of Greek-language text, so we should obviously use the dedicated ''micro-'' symbol, as intended, when we mean ''micro-'' not ''mu'' in Greek-script quoted material. The fact that various off-WP writers have preferred the Greek letter is almost certainly because character-picker tools like Windows Character Map and PopChar (Mac OS) make it easier to find the Greek letter, in a code block for Greek right after the Latin alphabet, than to find the ''micro-'' symbol, mingled in confusingly with various other symbols. You have to know where (in your preferred tool) to look for it. That's a good reason to spell out what character it is and how to insert it as a decimal or hex HTML character entity, and to have templates auto-emit it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 23:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC) |
:::::Skimming that, I don't find it compelling. I too was involved in Unicode mailing lists back when, and many decisions where typical, arbitrary (in the negative sense) "design by committee" gaffes, while many were not and were pointedly about separating symbols from natural-language characters that look like them. One person's anecdote about what they remember about what they thought might have been the intent back when, well, it just isn't very meaningful. What other people are using in their house style isn't very informative here, either, especially when the characters are essentially identical. (This is a bit like the dash-versus-hyphen-versus-minus and x-versus-×-in-math disputations; it really doesn't matter one whit that the average publisher just uses "-" and "x"; we use "−" and "×" in a maths context because they're the functionally correct characters to use, even if the average person neither notices nor cares.) There's a Unicode character specifically for ''micro-'' reduced to a symbol, it has {{em|not}} been deprecated, we have no indication it will ever be deprecated (any more than will IPA symbols that also coincide visually with natural-language ones in various writing systems), and it has no connection to rendering of Greek-language text, so we should obviously use the dedicated ''micro-'' symbol, as intended, when we mean ''micro-'' not ''mu'' in Greek-script quoted material. The fact that various off-WP writers have preferred the Greek letter is almost certainly because character-picker tools like Windows Character Map and PopChar (Mac OS) make it easier to find the Greek letter, in a code block for Greek right after the Latin alphabet, than to find the ''micro-'' symbol, mingled in confusingly with various other symbols. You have to know where (in your preferred tool) to look for it. That's a good reason to spell out what character it is and how to insert it as a decimal or hex HTML character entity, and to have templates auto-emit it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 23:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::::See my comment at the other thread. Micro is a compatibility decomposable character. It "would not have been encoded in the Unicode Standard except for compatibility and round-trip convertibility with other standards" (section 2.3) [[User:Kendall-K1|Kendall-K1]] ([[User talk:Kendall-K1|talk]]) 00:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::But it has been, and it's there, so we should use it instead of misapplying a glyph from the Greek-language character subset for non-Greek purposes. I would love it if Unicode eliminated all duplicate and near-duplicate glyphs (especially since various characters that should be in 8-bit Unicode ([[UTF-8]]) are not due to lack of namespace room) but it's never going to happen. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 04:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::The Greek letter mu has been designated '''per SI''' to be '''the symbol for SI-prefix micro-'''. Once and where declared a symbol, it is not the "Greek language" any more (Greek ''script'' it is, but language =/= script). It is not up to Unicode to overrule that SI definition. Anecdotal background is not an argument, nor is {{tq|1=Skimming that [micro/mu discussion], I don't find it compelling}} a strong argument. I point to the Kendall-K1 quote above @00:29: that the micro sign is a {{tq|1=compatibility decomposable character}}, per a major Unicode policy. That is: added to provide compatability with legacy code systems (think old ASCII with limited number of code points so only selected non-Latin characters were imported into Latin set). Also, nowhere does Unicode claim or even suggest the micro sign should replace the letter mu ''anywhere''. Also no need to go to the "confusion" area of the web, of Unicode, or of anyone's understanding. Both Unicode and SI are perfectly clear in this, and the web can handle this clarity. |
|||
::::::::And ''no'', the micro/mu issue is not the same as the sdot/middot issue (as stated below), because the dot is a math operator, and the mu-prefix symbol is not. Math operators have ''different semantics'' from other dots, the prefix symbol has ''not'': it is still the Greek letter. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 09:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::This is turning completely circular, and I decline to reiterate my position just because you're reiterating yours. We've both made our case. I don't want this to turn into one of those "SI ''mebi-'' and ''gibi-'' prefixes" types of near-interminable disputes. There are arguments in both directions, and consensus will settle on one or the other, probably not on the basis of technical assertions about which is more "correct" according to SI, or, well, the SI prefixes debate would not have dragged out for so long and would not have concluded the way it did. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 09:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''mu'''. The use of mu as a metric symbol predates SI, let alone Unicode - for example, the 1911 [[Kaye and Laby]] uses it. SI is independent of Unicode and does not define symbols in terms of Unicode; it defines the micro- symbol as mu, not as any particular Unicode character. [[Special:Contributions/92.19.24.9|92.19.24.9]] ([[User talk:92.19.24.9|talk]]) 23:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC) |
*'''mu'''. The use of mu as a metric symbol predates SI, let alone Unicode - for example, the 1911 [[Kaye and Laby]] uses it. SI is independent of Unicode and does not define symbols in terms of Unicode; it defines the micro- symbol as mu, not as any particular Unicode character. [[Special:Contributions/92.19.24.9|92.19.24.9]] ([[User talk:92.19.24.9|talk]]) 23:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC) |
||
*:We know. WP works in Unicode like the rest of the Web. Where Unicode provides two glyphs for the same thing (the character specified by SI), one a technical symbol, and one specifically for Greek text, we use the the former for the former purpose, we don't misuse the latter for it, or misuse the former for Greek material. Again, this is exactly the same issue as hyphen, dash, and minus characters, or <code>x</code> versus <code>×</code>. It {{em|does not matter}} that some other publishers chose to use - for minus and x for multiplication because they don't care about Unicode distinctions; WP is not among those publishers. Another example is duplicate-looking glyphs in Greek and Latin, and in Greek, Cyrillic, etc. We don't use the Greek ones in Cyrillic or the Latin ones in Greek just because we feel like it or they're easier to type, or any other reason. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 00:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Punctuation of sports scores and vote tallies == |
== Punctuation of sports scores and vote tallies == |
||
Line 207: | Line 215: | ||
At least one thread on this page (namely, part of the discussion at [[#Number ranges more generally]]) indicates some confusion about this, an inference that MoS is somehow expecting/demanding "five to seven kg", due to lack of an exception for measurements, so this probably should be resolved. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 22:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC) |
At least one thread on this page (namely, part of the discussion at [[#Number ranges more generally]]) indicates some confusion about this, an inference that MoS is somehow expecting/demanding "five to seven kg", due to lack of an exception for measurements, so this probably should be resolved. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 22:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC) |
||
:Well, the table says {{tq|Do not spell out numbers before unit symbols ... but words or figures may be used with unit names.}} There's a kind of division of labor under which ''Numbers as figures or words'' deals mostly with unitless stuff + non-scientific stuff like money and minutes/hours, and ''Unit names and symbols'' deals with hardcore units. I'm always torn about whether to duplicate advice like numbers-as-figures-or-words in two places. '''[[User:EEng#s|<font color="red">E</font>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<font color="blue">Eng</font>]]''' 02:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::I've learned the hard way that it's best to do so, concisely and with a pointer to the more detailed section. People do not read MoS as a document from start to finish, but by shortcuts to sections to answer a specific question. If they don't find it where they think they should find it, they tend to just make an assumption (often incorrect) and stop looking. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 04:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FDates_and_numbers&type=revision&diff=811368212&oldid=811366891 This] ought to take care of it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 04:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Instruction creep to remove from "Numbers as figures or words" section == |
== Instruction creep to remove from "Numbers as figures or words" section == |
||
Line 212: | Line 224: | ||
{{quote|1=Personal ages are typically stated in figures ({{xt|8-year-old child}}).}} |
{{quote|1=Personal ages are typically stated in figures ({{xt|8-year-old child}}).}} |
||
It simply isn't correct, and is patent [[WP:CREEP]]. It's entirely normal English, including in an encyclopedic register (perhaps especially in one) to write "eight-year-old child". Many of us do this, and the alleged exception is inconsistent with the general "Numbers as figures or words" rule, for no good reason. We gain nothing – for readers or for editors – in having this line-item. This is simply someone's personal preference, and I don't believe it represents consensus at all. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 22:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC) |
It simply isn't correct, and is patent [[WP:CREEP]]. It's entirely normal English, including in an encyclopedic register (perhaps especially in one) to write "eight-year-old child". Many of us do this, and the alleged exception is inconsistent with the general "Numbers as figures or words" rule, for no good reason. We gain nothing – for readers or for editors – in having this line-item. This is simply someone's personal preference, and I don't believe it represents consensus at all. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 22:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC) |
||
:Agree. I suspect this probably began in the newspaper style "John Smith, 8, was also injured." '''[[User:EEng#s|<font color="red">E</font>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<font color="blue">Eng</font>]]''' 02:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Yeah, and that's a style we wouldn't use here. We don't even do that in infoboxes; we use "Died: June 22, 2008 (aged 71)" style. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ><sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>< </span> 04:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Obviously. '''[[User:EEng#s|<font color="red">E</font>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<font color="blue">Eng</font>]]''' 05:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:39, 21 November 2017
Template:Unit plural discussion
![]() | Manual of Style ![]() ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | It has been 2478 days since the outbreak of the latest dispute over date formats. |
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/MOS_A_Muse_Flatly_no.gif/130px-MOS_A_Muse_Flatly_no.gif)
Number ranges more generally
Meant to bring this up a long time ago, but forgot. The logic and resultant rule we're applying to date ranges – to give them in the form 2002–2011 not 2002–11 – applies to all numeric ranges (outside of directly quoted material) and we need to state that explicitly. I keep running into sporadic WP:WIKILAWYERing along lines which can be parodied as "I can use 'p. 2002–11' if I wanna because MOS:NUM#Ranges only technically applies to dates, and no matter how much WP:COMMONSENSE dictates that that the reasoning applies across the board, the rules don't quite say it, so ha ha ha." Let's just fix it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 06:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the preference for a single piece of guidance in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 129 #WP:DATERANGE ambiguity and stylistic concerns RfC debate would apply equally to the choice between full number ranges and abbreviated ones, in particular phrases like "pages 153–158" vs "pages 153–58" or "pages 153–8". It would be a step forward, I think, to encourage one style and deprecate the others. Reading the RfC, I believe that there is likely consensus for a new sub-section in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers #Numbers titled "Number ranges" with guidance along the lines of "Number ranges, including page ranges, when given as ordinals, should state the full number both for the beginning and end of the range." I expect that the usual exceptions like "In tables and infoboxes where space is limited ..." and when quoting a source directly would need to be mentioned, along with a few examples.
- You will either need to start a new RfC, or try a bold edit to this page and see if it sticks. Or perhaps there will be lots more debate here, whence we can determine consensus. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Took the bold approach [1], since all the reasoning in the RfC applies to other date ranges. We can of course RfC it again if necessary. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- User:SMcCandish, I'd much prefer to retain the option. How do you like journal page ranges such as "43241–43248". Really? I'd do a service to readers: "43241–48". Tony (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- The problem I see is that for every case of "43241–8" (which is honestly hard to be certain is intended to be a range rather than some kind of obscure serial number or something, so yes I do think "43241–43248" is preferable) there's going to be about 1000 cases of "125–9" or "1901–05". The last kind of case is seriously problematic since it looks like a Y-M date; many fonts do not distinguish clearly between - and –, and many readers are not clear on the distinction even if they can see it. Maybe a caveat can be added that if the range begins with a number higher than 2100 the short form can be used. That should avoid any potential confusion with dates up to the near future. PS: We can't do something like "If it could be confused for a date, use the long form" because some of this data is auto-generated by templates and bots and such. We can't depend on every number range to be human edited. That'll be even more true the more WikiData stuff is implemented here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 03:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- "125–9" or "1901–05"—Isn't that what Chicago demands? Tony (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- CMoS has a complicated four-tiered system for compressing ranges, geared to avoiding ambiguities (they say, though I don't see that it deals with date-confusion), and based on how large the starting number is. I strongly suspect their system is too fiddly for WP to accept (plus it's a manual thing, and can't reliably be done in an automated way). The CMoS system, and any others for compression, are concerned with paper publications where space-saving is a concern. CMoS also recognizes the don't-compress rule we implemented for dates, and the compress-maximally ("2934–8") approach some want to use here. Maybe more importantly, it expects citations in a consistent format with a particular order of authors, dates, pages, etc., and a more limited number of such parameters, where we have utter chaos. The potential for confusing dates and other things is much higher on WP, especially since people are empowered by WP:CITEVAR to invent their own citation "styles" (according to CITEVAR's regulars, anyway), and our templated citations have parameters for just about every kind of source ID there is, many of which are numeric. PS: Anyone should feel free to revert the WP:BOLD addition of the "Number ranges" section, of course. If it needs more discussion and perhaps more exemptions or whatever, we can work that out. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 17:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- "125–9" or "1901–05"—Isn't that what Chicago demands? Tony (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- The problem I see is that for every case of "43241–8" (which is honestly hard to be certain is intended to be a range rather than some kind of obscure serial number or something, so yes I do think "43241–43248" is preferable) there's going to be about 1000 cases of "125–9" or "1901–05". The last kind of case is seriously problematic since it looks like a Y-M date; many fonts do not distinguish clearly between - and –, and many readers are not clear on the distinction even if they can see it. Maybe a caveat can be added that if the range begins with a number higher than 2100 the short form can be used. That should avoid any potential confusion with dates up to the near future. PS: We can't do something like "If it could be confused for a date, use the long form" because some of this data is auto-generated by templates and bots and such. We can't depend on every number range to be human edited. That'll be even more true the more WikiData stuff is implemented here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 03:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- User:SMcCandish, I'd much prefer to retain the option. How do you like journal page ranges such as "43241–43248". Really? I'd do a service to readers: "43241–48". Tony (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Took the bold approach [1], since all the reasoning in the RfC applies to other date ranges. We can of course RfC it again if necessary. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Any further input on this? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 05:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- On a related issue, Mac. Why is it that a range of general numbers e.g. 10–15 is OK to be written this way, but 1–9 should be spelled out as "one to nine"? At appears to be inconsistent to me. William Harris • (talk) • 09:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Surely it all depends on context? Citing "pages 1–9" seems perfectly reasonable to me, as does "the boat could carry one to nine additional guns". Who would write those differently? I think the problem is in expecting us to be able to write prescriptive rules to cover every possible circumstance. The English language simply isn't that amenable to regulation. --RexxS (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Right. In running prose, we'd normally write "one to nine" because we normally write "one" and "nine". But we wouldn't do that to things conventionally given in numerals, like page numbers, addresses, sports scores, vote tallies, measurements, etc. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 19:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Surely it all depends on context? Citing "pages 1–9" seems perfectly reasonable to me, as does "the boat could carry one to nine additional guns". Who would write those differently? I think the problem is in expecting us to be able to write prescriptive rules to cover every possible circumstance. The English language simply isn't that amenable to regulation. --RexxS (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- On a related issue, Mac. Why is it that a range of general numbers e.g. 10–15 is OK to be written this way, but 1–9 should be spelled out as "one to nine"? At appears to be inconsistent to me. William Harris • (talk) • 09:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Many thanks for both of your replies. It was measurements that I had in mind as I contribute largely to biology-related subjects. I certainly would write 5-7 kg, or 2–7 km, but that is not what the guide advises. It would look strange stating that "the smaller subspecies weighs from five to seven kilograms and the larger subspecies 10-14kg." Following from your earlier lead, Mac, I have been WP:BOLD on the article page. William Harris • (talk) • 20:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- @William Harris: Where do you think the wording needs clarification? I'm not sure where your "not what the guide advises" is coming from. MOS:NUM#Number ranges doesn't suggest anything like "five to seven kg" [or "... kilograms" or "... kilogrammes"], and only illustrates ranges with figures. If anything, we might need to clarify that one should write "five to seven survey respondents out of ten", when the numbers are not something we normally always put in figures (scores, votes, measurements before units, etc.), since the section doesn't actually illustrate this usage. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 22:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
PS: I think I've IDed the problem, and have addressed it under separate cover at #Missing point in "Numbers as figures or words" section, below. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 22:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- @William Harris: Where do you think the wording needs clarification? I'm not sure where your "not what the guide advises" is coming from. MOS:NUM#Number ranges doesn't suggest anything like "five to seven kg" [or "... kilograms" or "... kilogrammes"], and only illustrates ranges with figures. If anything, we might need to clarify that one should write "five to seven survey respondents out of ten", when the numbers are not something we normally always put in figures (scores, votes, measurements before units, etc.), since the section doesn't actually illustrate this usage. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 22:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Many thanks for both of your replies. It was measurements that I had in mind as I contribute largely to biology-related subjects. I certainly would write 5-7 kg, or 2–7 km, but that is not what the guide advises. It would look strange stating that "the smaller subspecies weighs from five to seven kilograms and the larger subspecies 10-14kg." Following from your earlier lead, Mac, I have been WP:BOLD on the article page. William Harris • (talk) • 20:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Regarding: Numbers as figures or words, Generally, in article text: "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words." We now turn our attention to the meaning of this word "general" - (of a rule, principle, etc.) true for all or most cases. What I am referring to does not appear under the Notes and exceptions nor does it appear under Number ranges. Somewhere, it should. William Harris • (talk) • 00:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Non-breaking spaces
In the section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers #Numbers as figures or words, there are examples of markup that have no reason behind them. In particular:
- Other numbers are given in numerals (3.75, 544) or in forms such as 21 million. Markup:
21{{nbsp}}million
I fail to see why "million" is any different in general from any other word.
The guidance at MOS:NBSP is "It is desirable to prevent line breaks where breaking across lines might be confusing or awkward." If you examine the sentence "Over 60 million people live in the UK", what is confusing or awkward about breaking after the 60? It does not impart any alternative meaning, so is not confusing; and starting the next line with "million" is no more awkward than any other word. Of course starting a line with an abbreviation or unit symbol, or punctuation like an ellipsis would be awkward, but we have MOS guidance already asking us to avoid those circumstances.
I do understand that sentences like "She sold the company for £5 million." would benefit from having a non-breaking space before the million. But that is simply because the currency unit appearing before the ordinal allows the fragment "She sold the company for £5" to have a very different meaning and a cognitive dissonance occurs if the reader then encounters "million" at the start of the next line. Nevertheless, those cases are already covered by MOS:NBSP's "prevent line breaks where breaking across lines might be confusing", so why should we be requiring a non-breaking space in all cases of an ordinal followed by "million" (or "billion", etc.)? --RexxS (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. No one minds the avoidance of wrapping in display mode, but it makes our edit mode even less friendly to newbies and casual editors. If only we had a less cumbersome mark-up for it. Tony (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- We do have one:
{{ns}}
. This should probably be merged with{{nbsp}}
since they serve the same purpose (including spans of multiple non-breaking spaces). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 03:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC) - I don't see an issue with using a non-breaking space in that example, but I suppose the main reason to use a non-breaking space is that whatever numerical value precedes "million" is modified by that unit of scale. For what it's worth, a cognitive dissonance would also occur with a sentence like the following if a line break occurred between the numeric value (1.5) and the unit of scale ("thousand"):
- We do have one:
" The average weight of a [car make and model] in kilograms is approximately 1.5
thousand.
"
- Compare that to the example provided above:
" She sold the company for £5
million.
"
- @RexxS: Any time that a unit of measurement precedes a numeric value that is modified by a unit of scale (e.g., thousand, million, billion, etc.), the same issue arises; it's not unique to cases where the unit of measurement is a currency. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. You don't even need a unit of measurement to generate ambiguity, whenever you write a multiplier as words: "The number of people affected was estimated to be 10 thousand". That ought not to break between "10" and "thousand" and a non-breaking space would be helpful in cases like that. Of course you can always write "The number of people affected was estimated to be 10,000". Just as you can write "The average weight of the car is approximately 1.5 thousand kilograms, which I would find much more natural and wouldn't cause any problem if the line broke before either of the words "thousand" or "kilograms". Or just use "1.5 tonnes" in that particular case – still doesn't need a non-breaking space. --RexxS (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- You make a fair point; however, referring back to our discussion at Talk:MDMA, I still think the use of non-breaking spaces in that context should just be left up to individual editors.
- Also, this is sort of a tangential point, but we really should have an article, or at least a redirect to an article section, about "unit of scale" / "units of scale". Potential content references: [2][3]. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough, and I agree with you about the usefullness of an article or redirect. But you're never going to convince me there's any value whatsoever in putting a non-breaking space anywhere in the sentence
"In 2014, between 9 and 29 million people between the ages of 15 and 64 used ecstasy"
. --RexxS (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough, and I agree with you about the usefullness of an article or redirect. But you're never going to convince me there's any value whatsoever in putting a non-breaking space anywhere in the sentence
- Sure. You don't even need a unit of measurement to generate ambiguity, whenever you write a multiplier as words: "The number of people affected was estimated to be 10 thousand". That ought not to break between "10" and "thousand" and a non-breaking space would be helpful in cases like that. Of course you can always write "The number of people affected was estimated to be 10,000". Just as you can write "The average weight of the car is approximately 1.5 thousand kilograms, which I would find much more natural and wouldn't cause any problem if the line broke before either of the words "thousand" or "kilograms". Or just use "1.5 tonnes" in that particular case – still doesn't need a non-breaking space. --RexxS (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- @RexxS: Any time that a unit of measurement precedes a numeric value that is modified by a unit of scale (e.g., thousand, million, billion, etc.), the same issue arises; it's not unique to cases where the unit of measurement is a currency. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
"Miles" in prose
There does not seem to be any guidance in this Manual of Style on what units to use in prose writing and whether to convert them (such as this edit: "they used bamboo pipelines to transport and carry both brine and natural gas for many miles" to "they used bamboo pipelines to transport and carry both brine and natural gas for many kilometres."). WP:UNITS seems to state use SI (kilometers) "In all other articles" without "strong national ties", but it seems to just cover actual unit measurement, not prose. Using the unit "miles" without converting in prose seems to be supported by this Manual because it is cited twice as an example, "He walked several miles", "Miles of trenches were dug". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Those examples seem irrelevant to this question. I don't see why prose would be any different from any other use of units. In this particular case I would go back to the sources (why are there four of them?) and see what they say. And use SI units with optional conversion, as there doesn't appear to be a strong national tie for this article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Domine%2C_quo_vadis.jpg/150px-Domine%2C_quo_vadis.jpg)
- (edit conflict) There are two scenarios: (i) where you have a direct quote from a source; (ii) where you are writing a prose summary of one or more sources.
- In the case of the direct quotation, there's little doubt that "for many miles" is best, if that is what the source states. Fidelity to the source is essential.
- Where you are paraphrasing and summarising sources, you have more flexibility. You may ask yourself in those cases whether you need to write either "for many miles" or "for many kilometres"? If there is some more precise indication of distance like "for about 30 miles", that could easily be written as "for about 30 miles (50 km)", which increases the breadth of audience who would find it easily comprehensible. Obviously, constructions like "for more than 50 miles (80 km)" are just as useful.
- If there really isn't any better indication in the sources about the distance, then I'd recommend using either phrases like "He walked several miles" or "He walked several kilometres" (but not both), depending on what system is the primary one used in the article (i.e. imperial or metric) – if there is one. That has the advantage that you're not altering whatever scheme is already in place in the article, so you're slightly less likely to get into conflict with the pedants who insist there is only One True Way™. HTH --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Great answer. EEng 01:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yep. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 03:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Great answer. EEng 01:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Rule on M and bn
I have to question whether this should be retained, at least in anything like the current form:
- M (unspaced) or bn (unspaced) respectively may be used for "million" or "billion" after a number, when the word has been spelled out at the first occurrence (She received £70 million and her son £10M).<!-- This needs to be coordinated with text in units tables re nonuse of M (for 1000) MM, etc. -->
Reasons:
- It's inconsistent to use bn (lower-case) but M (capitalized).
- The bn abbreviation isn't all that frequently used in general-audience publications (mostly in financial news, which verges on specialist material).
- It's also not consistently given as bn but sometimes Bn or B; why are we advocating bn in particular? (Similarly, m is often used in real-world sources, especially ones not using metric units.)
- The fact that this use of M can be confused with M for 1000 is a problem.
- In both cases, mil. and bil. appear to be much more common in general-audience English; I would advocate that we switch to recommending these.
- "At the first occurrence" here is ambiguous. We mean "at the first occurrence in the same passage" or something to this effect, but it's going to be misinterpreted to mean that as long as million appeared in the lead, for example, that any other occurrence can be replaced with M, even if it's separated from million by 50K of article text.
- When we actually do want to use an abbreviation, there's no reason that the normal rules in MOS:ABBR shouldn't apply – i.e., do something like £10mil. (or £10M) at first occurrence, with
{{abbr}}
, regardless how recently we used million somewhere in the same page.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 05:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Markup for math variables
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Mathematics variables section is wrong and needs updating
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 05:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Jewish dates
Is it possible to add Jewish dates in templates (for example {{cite news|date="7 Tishrei, 5775 // October 1, 2014"}})? --Jonund (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Decades
The example given "1960s Boston" - since it is referring to "Boston of the 1960s" I believe it should be written with an apostrophe in this case! i.e., "1960's Boston." Be good! 238-Gdn (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- No. 1960s is a plural not a genitive. Your example "1960's Boston" would
berefer to Boston in 1960, not for the ten years as a whole. By the way be careful of "decade". To be strict (which as an encyclopaedia we should) the decade runs from 1961 to 1970 inclusive, not from 1960 to 1969. See the discussion on the page. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)- No, your second point is wrong. A decade, as the article says, is any period of ten years. There is absolutely a decade of the 1960s, and it runs from 1960 to 1969. There is also a "seventh decade of the twentieth century", which runs from 1961 to 1970. --Trovatore (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, you're right that it's a plural, but it is also genitive (or possessive). In that case, it should be 1960s', with the apostrophe after the s. By the way, it's not my example, but one of the examples offered in the text, which is not accurate, and is therefore confusing. I suggest changing the example and writing a new paragraph with examples in which use of the apostrophe would be required. Be good! 238-Gdn (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- [4] It's no more a possessive than are 1963 Boston or 19th-century Boston, though constructions such as from the nineteenth century's strictures to the 1960s' permissiveness are conceivable. EEng 10:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Don't use an apostrophe. It's not necessary, and it will just inspire people to insert the apostrophe all over the place ("in the 1960's"). The "1960s Boston" case is not a possessive unless you are engaging in farcical anthropomorphism. It's simply an adjective, in exactly the same form as "nineteenth-century Japan". It is possible to conceive of "the nineteenth century's Japan" but this is silly poetics, not encyclopedic writing. PS: The fact that one has a hyphen and the other doesn't clearly illustrates that the two constructions are different in nature, which was harder to detect with a single-word case like "1960[']s". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 21:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Separators other than hyphen
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Sommer%2C_Giorgio_-_Famille_napolitaine.jpg/130px-Sommer%2C_Giorgio_-_Famille_napolitaine.jpg)
Let's stop arguing this through edit summaries.
It seems we have three separate concerns. Stanton doesn't like changing between singular and plural in the same sentence. EE notes that the other entries in the table are plural, and points out that you can say "letters other than X". My concern is that "hyphen" is not the name of the hyphen in the same sense that X is the name of the letter X.
Is that an accurate summary? If we agree on the problem, we might have a better chance of finding a solution. --Trovatore (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oh for crying out loud, this is a table of minimalist instructions:
- Do not abbreviate year
- No comma between month and year
- Comma required
- Do not abbreviate year (and, yes...)
- Do not use separators other than hyphen
- It's not supposed to be full sentences with all the trimmings (Do not use any separator other than the hyphen) and the particular choices made depend in part on the examples involved, and the surrounding injunctions. (I'm the primary author of the table – with the help of various of our esteemed fellow editors of course – so call it ownership if you want.) But if it keeps you up at night, knock yourselves out. I can't guarantee, though, that years from now I won't forget and tinker it back. EEng 17:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- But it is supposed to be written in English, not Pidgen. There is a clear difference between "Do not use separators other than hyphen" and "Do not abbreviate year", since 'year' in that context is standing in place of an actual year: the latter is tantamount to saying "Do not abbreviate 1849 to '49"; while the former isn't an injunction against writing 'yr' or some other abbreviation of the word 'year'. A hyphen is itself, the name of the separator, and in that context requires an article when used in the singular, otherwise it reads jarringly. I'll just repeat here for completeness that other singular terms in the table like "a dot", "an abbreviated month", "a leading zero" are rendered complete with an article, and quite rightly. --RexxS (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- OK, whatever. A table like this is meant to give short, punchy injunctions that can be taken in at a glance; they're as far away from the formality of article text as you can get. Next you'll be turning Comma required between day and year into A comma is required between the day and the year (or maybe, I suppose, The comma is required between a day and a year, or maybe some other combination of definite and indefinite, according to some elaborate analysis). You guys are being silly.
- And don't forget to change No comma between month and year --> The/A comma must not be used between the/a month and the/a year. 'Cause articles are important.
- EEng 18:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- But it is supposed to be written in English, not Pidgen. There is a clear difference between "Do not use separators other than hyphen" and "Do not abbreviate year", since 'year' in that context is standing in place of an actual year: the latter is tantamount to saying "Do not abbreviate 1849 to '49"; while the former isn't an injunction against writing 'yr' or some other abbreviation of the word 'year'. A hyphen is itself, the name of the separator, and in that context requires an article when used in the singular, otherwise it reads jarringly. I'll just repeat here for completeness that other singular terms in the table like "a dot", "an abbreviated month", "a leading zero" are rendered complete with an article, and quite rightly. --RexxS (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- The fact that you can say "letters other than X" is kind of irrelevant. I can say "I don't drive any cars but Toyotas" and that comes off better than with a singular "Toyota". Same issue here. I really don't care that much, other that by doing the "Do not use separators other than hyphens" plurality agreement, we also get rid of the "I don't like your telegraphic 'Do not use separators other than hyphen'" objection someone had; two birds, one stone. I have no idea why EEng thinks that "hyphens" is objectionable here when clearly it isn't. The fact that "hyphen" isn't linguistically impossible to use here doesn't make it the better choice, when it solves nothing and raises two (or is it three?) independently observed problems. But I really WP:DGAF. I was just responding to REVTALK minor editwarring triggering my watchlist, by providing a solution that both sides should find acceptable. If they won't, there's nothing I can do about that. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 21:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Watch out, someone'll tell you you should write "I don't drive any cars but Toyota's". If we settle on
Do not use separators other than hyphens
I probably won't unthinkingly change it years from now. EEng 21:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)- In het Nederlands zou je kunnen zeggen "Ik rijd geen auto's behalve Toyota's" :p Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- The only people who would tell you to write that are all Grocer's. --RexxS (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Um, "I don't drive any cars but Toyota's" is entirely correct (if a bit odd-sounding – which is why I was joking that this crowd might want to impose it). Compare "I don't like any fish but mama's". EEng 23:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Seems a bit "if Mark Twain had a time machine". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 09:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Um, "I don't drive any cars but Toyota's" is entirely correct (if a bit odd-sounding – which is why I was joking that this crowd might want to impose it). Compare "I don't like any fish but mama's". EEng 23:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Watch out, someone'll tell you you should write "I don't drive any cars but Toyota's". If we settle on
- Can we agree on
Do not use separators other than hyphens
? EEng 04:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)- Sure. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 09:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Of course.
--RexxS (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Symbols for dot and micro
What symbols should {{convert}} display for units that need a product dot or a micro sign? I suspect that convert uses the wrong symbols. Examples:
- Unit
kW.h
has symbol kW·h (uses middot). Discussion at Template talk:Convert#Dots. - Unit
um
has symbol µm (uses micro). Discussion at Template talk:Convert#Micro symbols.
Dot
- ⋅ = U+22C5 = multiplication dot = dot operator = ⋅ = ⋅
- · = U+00B7 = interword separation = middle dot = · = ·
- WP:MOSMATH says to use sdot for math products.
- WP:MOSNUM says to use middot for products of units, example m·s for metre-second.
Micro
- μ = U+03BC = Greek small letter mu
- µ = U+00B5 = micro sign (displayed by
µ
in at least two browsers) - Micro-#Symbol encoding in character sets says to use mu, not micro.
- WP:MOSNUM says to use mu for μm.
I'm planning to change convert to use sdot (instead of middot) and mu (instead of micro). Using sdot contradicts the first WP:MOSNUM link above. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- The mid-dot in unit combinations, is clearly a multiplication symbol and should use the same symbol as any other mathematical multiplication (I don't care which of the two dots is adopted, but it shold be the same dot for both).
- The μ in μm is a Greek lower case mu - no other character should be used for this purpose IMO.
- In other words, I agree with Johnuniq's proposal to harmonise these. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- I support.
- Wrt the dot, the two MOSes are contradicting and one should be changed (it follows, WP:MOSNUM should be changed). I note that per SI, the unit is an algebraic formula (allowing calculations), so in m·s (for metre-second) it is the multiplication symbol.
- Wrt the micro/mu: as an SI-prefix it is a letter, not a math operator symbol, so the Greek letter is the obvious one. The confusion arose when Unicode created two characters for this one letter. (But maybe outside of SI-prefix, the "micro" does have a meaning?) -DePiep (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support updating WP:MOSNUM to suggest to sdot, and to use mu and sdot in templates for units. I imagine that WP:MOSNUM may have been written without considering the alternative to middot. —Quondum 23:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Question: ping @SMcCandlish, RexxS, Tony1, and EEng: I'd like to hear from the regulars here, would be nice if the two MOSes and {{Convert}} all align. -DePiep (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support updating WP:MOSNUM to use sdot for compound units, and to use mu and sdot in templates for units. I am used to the sdot (dot operator) indicating a product, but of course that might be old-fashioned! It wouldn't hurt to settle on Johnuniq's suggested scheme, and would only require bringing MOSNUM into line – I'm fairly certain readers won't be confused by seeing compound units like m⋅s and kW⋅h, as opposed to m·s and kW·h. Slightly tangentially, quantities like torque are vector products, rather than scalar products like work, but nobody is going to complain about us using N⋅m (I hope). --RexxS (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'll go along with whatever you guys settle on. EEng 20:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support John's proposal, and fix mosnum to say sdot instead of middot. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Looks to me like we should be consistently using:
⋅
– U+22C5 (dot operator a.k.a. multiplication dot),⋅
,⋅
,⋅
µ
– U+00B5 (micro sign),µ
,µ
,µ
- The others are just approximations, and the names of these two unmistakably indicate they are the correct characters for these purposes. The other dot is a typesetting character, not a maths operator, and the mu is a Greek letter not a technical symbol (though the latter is obviously derived from the former). It's irritating that Unicode actually does this stuff with characters that are visually identical, but it does, and we're stuck with it. PS: I don't agree that "as an SI-prefix it is a letter, not a math operator symbol". "Micro sign" != "math operator". It's simply a symbol, and the correct one to use here, because μm is not Greek (i.e., we would not put it or the full version, micrometer/micrometre, inside
{{lang|el|...}}
). This is science and other fields repurposing what originated as a Greek letter, for symbolic purposes unrelated to rendering Greek text. Saying we should use the Greek letter μ is tantamount to saying we should not use the ™ symbol, but instead use<sup style="font-variant: small-caps;">TM</sup>
.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 21:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)- Now that you mention it I do recall the special micro sign, distinct from mu. So yes we should use that. EEng 22:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Please review the discussion at Template talk:Convert#Micro symbols where reasons for using mu not micro are given. Extracts: Micro-#Symbol encoding in character sets + WP:MOSNUM + "in every case that I checked, the encoding is U+03BC". Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Skimming that, I don't find it compelling. I too was involved in Unicode mailing lists back when, and many decisions where typical, arbitrary (in the negative sense) "design by committee" gaffes, while many were not and were pointedly about separating symbols from natural-language characters that look like them. One person's anecdote about what they remember about what they thought might have been the intent back when, well, it just isn't very meaningful. What other people are using in their house style isn't very informative here, either, especially when the characters are essentially identical. (This is a bit like the dash-versus-hyphen-versus-minus and x-versus-×-in-math disputations; it really doesn't matter one whit that the average publisher just uses "-" and "x"; we use "−" and "×" in a maths context because they're the functionally correct characters to use, even if the average person neither notices nor cares.) There's a Unicode character specifically for micro- reduced to a symbol, it has not been deprecated, we have no indication it will ever be deprecated (any more than will IPA symbols that also coincide visually with natural-language ones in various writing systems), and it has no connection to rendering of Greek-language text, so we should obviously use the dedicated micro- symbol, as intended, when we mean micro- not mu in Greek-script quoted material. The fact that various off-WP writers have preferred the Greek letter is almost certainly because character-picker tools like Windows Character Map and PopChar (Mac OS) make it easier to find the Greek letter, in a code block for Greek right after the Latin alphabet, than to find the micro- symbol, mingled in confusingly with various other symbols. You have to know where (in your preferred tool) to look for it. That's a good reason to spell out what character it is and how to insert it as a decimal or hex HTML character entity, and to have templates auto-emit it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- See my comment at the other thread. Micro is a compatibility decomposable character. It "would not have been encoded in the Unicode Standard except for compatibility and round-trip convertibility with other standards" (section 2.3) Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- But it has been, and it's there, so we should use it instead of misapplying a glyph from the Greek-language character subset for non-Greek purposes. I would love it if Unicode eliminated all duplicate and near-duplicate glyphs (especially since various characters that should be in 8-bit Unicode (UTF-8) are not due to lack of namespace room) but it's never going to happen. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 04:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- The Greek letter mu has been designated per SI to be the symbol for SI-prefix micro-. Once and where declared a symbol, it is not the "Greek language" any more (Greek script it is, but language =/= script). It is not up to Unicode to overrule that SI definition. Anecdotal background is not an argument, nor is
Skimming that [micro/mu discussion], I don't find it compelling
a strong argument. I point to the Kendall-K1 quote above @00:29: that the micro sign is acompatibility decomposable character
, per a major Unicode policy. That is: added to provide compatability with legacy code systems (think old ASCII with limited number of code points so only selected non-Latin characters were imported into Latin set). Also, nowhere does Unicode claim or even suggest the micro sign should replace the letter mu anywhere. Also no need to go to the "confusion" area of the web, of Unicode, or of anyone's understanding. Both Unicode and SI are perfectly clear in this, and the web can handle this clarity. - And no, the micro/mu issue is not the same as the sdot/middot issue (as stated below), because the dot is a math operator, and the mu-prefix symbol is not. Math operators have different semantics from other dots, the prefix symbol has not: it is still the Greek letter. -DePiep (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- This is turning completely circular, and I decline to reiterate my position just because you're reiterating yours. We've both made our case. I don't want this to turn into one of those "SI mebi- and gibi- prefixes" types of near-interminable disputes. There are arguments in both directions, and consensus will settle on one or the other, probably not on the basis of technical assertions about which is more "correct" according to SI, or, well, the SI prefixes debate would not have dragged out for so long and would not have concluded the way it did. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 09:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- The Greek letter mu has been designated per SI to be the symbol for SI-prefix micro-. Once and where declared a symbol, it is not the "Greek language" any more (Greek script it is, but language =/= script). It is not up to Unicode to overrule that SI definition. Anecdotal background is not an argument, nor is
- But it has been, and it's there, so we should use it instead of misapplying a glyph from the Greek-language character subset for non-Greek purposes. I would love it if Unicode eliminated all duplicate and near-duplicate glyphs (especially since various characters that should be in 8-bit Unicode (UTF-8) are not due to lack of namespace room) but it's never going to happen. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 04:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- See my comment at the other thread. Micro is a compatibility decomposable character. It "would not have been encoded in the Unicode Standard except for compatibility and round-trip convertibility with other standards" (section 2.3) Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Skimming that, I don't find it compelling. I too was involved in Unicode mailing lists back when, and many decisions where typical, arbitrary (in the negative sense) "design by committee" gaffes, while many were not and were pointedly about separating symbols from natural-language characters that look like them. One person's anecdote about what they remember about what they thought might have been the intent back when, well, it just isn't very meaningful. What other people are using in their house style isn't very informative here, either, especially when the characters are essentially identical. (This is a bit like the dash-versus-hyphen-versus-minus and x-versus-×-in-math disputations; it really doesn't matter one whit that the average publisher just uses "-" and "x"; we use "−" and "×" in a maths context because they're the functionally correct characters to use, even if the average person neither notices nor cares.) There's a Unicode character specifically for micro- reduced to a symbol, it has not been deprecated, we have no indication it will ever be deprecated (any more than will IPA symbols that also coincide visually with natural-language ones in various writing systems), and it has no connection to rendering of Greek-language text, so we should obviously use the dedicated micro- symbol, as intended, when we mean micro- not mu in Greek-script quoted material. The fact that various off-WP writers have preferred the Greek letter is almost certainly because character-picker tools like Windows Character Map and PopChar (Mac OS) make it easier to find the Greek letter, in a code block for Greek right after the Latin alphabet, than to find the micro- symbol, mingled in confusingly with various other symbols. You have to know where (in your preferred tool) to look for it. That's a good reason to spell out what character it is and how to insert it as a decimal or hex HTML character entity, and to have templates auto-emit it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Please review the discussion at Template talk:Convert#Micro symbols where reasons for using mu not micro are given. Extracts: Micro-#Symbol encoding in character sets + WP:MOSNUM + "in every case that I checked, the encoding is U+03BC". Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it I do recall the special micro sign, distinct from mu. So yes we should use that. EEng 22:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- mu. The use of mu as a metric symbol predates SI, let alone Unicode - for example, the 1911 Kaye and Laby uses it. SI is independent of Unicode and does not define symbols in terms of Unicode; it defines the micro- symbol as mu, not as any particular Unicode character. 92.19.24.9 (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- We know. WP works in Unicode like the rest of the Web. Where Unicode provides two glyphs for the same thing (the character specified by SI), one a technical symbol, and one specifically for Greek text, we use the the former for the former purpose, we don't misuse the latter for it, or misuse the former for Greek material. Again, this is exactly the same issue as hyphen, dash, and minus characters, or
x
versus×
. It does not matter that some other publishers chose to use - for minus and x for multiplication because they don't care about Unicode distinctions; WP is not among those publishers. Another example is duplicate-looking glyphs in Greek and Latin, and in Greek, Cyrillic, etc. We don't use the Greek ones in Cyrillic or the Latin ones in Greek just because we feel like it or they're easier to type, or any other reason. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 00:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- We know. WP works in Unicode like the rest of the Web. Where Unicode provides two glyphs for the same thing (the character specified by SI), one a technical symbol, and one specifically for Greek text, we use the the former for the former purpose, we don't misuse the latter for it, or misuse the former for Greek material. Again, this is exactly the same issue as hyphen, dash, and minus characters, or
Punctuation of sports scores and vote tallies
I notice that the page says "Sport scores and vote tallies should be given as figures, even if in the zero-to-nine range (a 25–7 victory; ...)". Can I interpret this as expressing a preference for an en-dash as the preferred punctuation mark in such instances – versus, for example "a 25-7 victory" or "a 25:7 victory" or "a 25 : 7 victory"? —BarrelProof (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I also found "a 51–30 win; a 22–17 majority vote;" at MOS:DASH, which seems to confirm that this is the preferred convention. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes; that's prescribed at MOS:DASH. The hyphenated "a 25-7 victory" is news style (in which WP is not written), and thus just a minor style error in encyclopedic/academic writing. "A 25:7 victory" is just wrong, and not a minor error but misleading/confusing, because that markup (with or without spaces) expresses a ratio not a count: "a 25:7 solution of [whatever in whatever]". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 21:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Missing point in "Numbers as figures or words" section
Something "obvious" that I'm pretty sure we used to have is missing from WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Numbers as figures or words: use figures before a unit. I.e., we do not want to see "seven kg" but "7 kg" (except "Seven ..." at the beginning of a sentence, if moving "7 kg" to elsewhere in the sentence doesn't work well for some reason). It seems very strange to me that this bit of very basic and central advice, which experienced editors all seem to be following, has somehow gone missing. The chart at WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#General guidelines on unit names and symbols illustrates the figure style pretty consistently, while permitting some examples of spelled-out number words (presumably for sentence-initial cases).
At least one thread on this page (namely, part of the discussion at #Number ranges more generally) indicates some confusion about this, an inference that MoS is somehow expecting/demanding "five to seven kg", due to lack of an exception for measurements, so this probably should be resolved. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 22:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the table says
Do not spell out numbers before unit symbols ... but words or figures may be used with unit names.
There's a kind of division of labor under which Numbers as figures or words deals mostly with unitless stuff + non-scientific stuff like money and minutes/hours, and Unit names and symbols deals with hardcore units. I'm always torn about whether to duplicate advice like numbers-as-figures-or-words in two places. EEng 02:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)- I've learned the hard way that it's best to do so, concisely and with a pointer to the more detailed section. People do not read MoS as a document from start to finish, but by shortcuts to sections to answer a specific question. If they don't find it where they think they should find it, they tend to just make an assumption (often incorrect) and stop looking. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 04:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- This ought to take care of it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 04:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've learned the hard way that it's best to do so, concisely and with a pointer to the more detailed section. People do not read MoS as a document from start to finish, but by shortcuts to sections to answer a specific question. If they don't find it where they think they should find it, they tend to just make an assumption (often incorrect) and stop looking. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 04:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Instruction creep to remove from "Numbers as figures or words" section
I propose removing this line from the "Notes and exceptions" subsection of WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Numbers as figures or words:
Personal ages are typically stated in figures (8-year-old child).
It simply isn't correct, and is patent WP:CREEP. It's entirely normal English, including in an encyclopedic register (perhaps especially in one) to write "eight-year-old child". Many of us do this, and the alleged exception is inconsistent with the general "Numbers as figures or words" rule, for no good reason. We gain nothing – for readers or for editors – in having this line-item. This is simply someone's personal preference, and I don't believe it represents consensus at all. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 22:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. I suspect this probably began in the newspaper style "John Smith, 8, was also injured." EEng 02:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, and that's a style we wouldn't use here. We don't even do that in infoboxes; we use "Died: June 22, 2008 (aged 71)" style. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 04:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Obviously. EEng 05:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, and that's a style we wouldn't use here. We don't even do that in infoboxes; we use "Died: June 22, 2008 (aged 71)" style. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 04:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)