Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

This talk page is for discussion of the page WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Please use it to make constructive suggestions as to the wording of that page. Anyone wishing to discuss the issue of IEC prefixes for quantities of bits and bytes should use this subpage of the main talk page. Date formats RfC: please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Proposal on international date format

Centralized discussion for linking of units of measurement

During a recent WP:ANI discussion:[1] it came to my attention that Wikipedia guidelines are inconsistant with regards to linking units in articles. This is an attempt to provide a consistant usage across ALL relevent guidelines. That this discussion is happening at this page is somewhat arbitrary; the intent is just to have a single location to have the discussion. Other relevent pages will be notified as needed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Relevent policy/guideline pages

• WP:MOSNUM states clearly that units should be linked at their first occurance in an article only, and not at further occurances.
• WP:OVERLINK states clearly that common units should not normally be linked, falling explicitly under the category of "plain English words".
• WP:MOSLINK states "In tables and infoboxes, units should not be internally linked to Wikipedia pages" but says nothing about article body text on the issue.
• <please add additional guidelines here as needed>

Comment. We cannot add to this list now, and give the false impression that the information was available when people started voting on these proposals. The whole procedure is fatally flawed. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Reply: This is not a vote. This is a discussion to figure out a) what needs to be fixed and b) how to fix it. Feel free to add any guidelines that may be missing. It is entirely possible that these three pages are the only three which are affected. We are discussing the principle, and the principle holds regardless of which policy and/or guideline page are affected. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It most certainly is framed as a vote, and improperly and prematurely so.
  • Before framing it that way, you should have figured out what the existing rules are, and how it might be fixed. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposals

Proposal 1:Always link

All occurances of units should be linked in all cases.

Support of this proposal

1. llywrch (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC) -- See discussion below.

Discussion of this proposal

• From reviewing the discussion on this matter of linking, many people on both sides are making a dangerous assumption here, that the Manual of Style is a form of Wikipedia policy. I do not believe this is correct: the Manual of Style is a systematic expression of Best known practices. In other words, its power is persuasive, not prescriptive; one does not get penalized for violating the MoS, & attempting to advocate something in the MoS without an appropriate discussion is the same as trying to advocate a specific point of view in an article.

If everyone persists in this belief despite all else, then the most appropriate thing is to make the MoS as permissive as possible, & instead of having an MoS Wikipedia should have a collection of essays setting forth the best known practices to solve various problems of style. This actually might be the best solution, regardless of the outcome of this RfC: is there a clear philosophy of when & why to add hyperlinks to webpages? Numerous people have argued that adding links is to help the reader to find more useful information -- but how do we know that this is why a reader might follow a link? For example, I often followed links in Wikipedia -- & off it -- for reasons other than to deepen or clarify my knowledge of given point or subject. Until we have an idea of why we should link, & when it is most useful for readers, then enforcing any kind of MoS on specific kinds of links -- whether common or uncommon units & dates -- then we will simply argue endlessly over what to do. -- llywrch (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Anderson: quick, here's a member for your anti-MoS clique. Tony (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And what is that comment supposed to mean? -- llywrch (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2:Link first occurrence

Units should only be linked on their first occurance in the main body of an article. They should not be linked multiple times in the same article, nor should they be linked in infoboxes or tables.

Support of this proposal

1. —MJCdetroit ^(yak)
2. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (struck thru my vote below. Mr. Nygaard makes some good points.)
3. — Mlaffs (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
4. — Greg L (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Seems sensible. I might add that we be a bit more specific about the accompanying parenthetical conversions to other systems of measurement: they should not be linked. I believe this is already embodied somewhere on MOS or MOSNUM. The unit of measure in the conversion is supposed to be only a unit symbol (not spelled out), and, when you think about it, it’s for people who go “Ah, that’s what the value means,” so it isn’t at all necessary to link the conversion. Besides, it avoids the need for a parenthesis in a parenthesis and finally gets that issue off our backs.

   Parenthesis in a parenthesis? I'm not sure you mean things like "Joe is very tall (7 ft (2.1 m))"—could you give an example? — CharlotteWebb 00:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

   Gene Nygaard, in his 20:31, 26 December 2008 post, above, wrote of the need to use square brackets to properly convey a parenthetical within a parenthetical. He wrote “So I'd put square brackets for the parenthetical symbol within the parentheses” and gave the example “56,000 pounds-force (lbf) (250 kilonewtons [kN])”. I am saying that since MOSNUM already prescribes that only the unit symbol be used in conversions, his example of adding a parenthetical unit symbol within what is already a parenthetical conversion is unnecessary. Further, we should clarify that it is not at all necessary to link the unit symbol in the conversion since it is provided only for those who find comfort with it anyway.

   Therefore, I believe the way this is properly done (and what I’ve seen on Wikipedia) is—on a first occurrence of a new unit of measure, it is “…they first achieved a tractive force of only 56,000 pounds-force (lbf) (250 kN)”. Thereafter in the article (after the new unit of measure has been introduced), it is “…and was later increased to 68,000 lbf (300 kN) after a year-long…” To preempt unit-war Jihad here, I used the example here of US customary units, with SI as a conversion, only to follow Gene’s example. Please don’t misconstrue my example as advocating US customary as a preferred system of measurement; I don’t and that issue is irrelevant to the point being made here. Greg L (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

   P.S. I’m changing my opinion here. See Preliminary matters, below. Greg L (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

   Quite to the contrary, Greg. The MOS 'requires that parenthetical "kilonewtons" to be spelled out, under your official MOSNUM interpretation of the meaning of "do not write over the heads of the readership". That's why, if you are going to include the symbol parenthetically to that, it should be in square brackets. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

5. --That is what I have always done and what I was taught when I got here a couple years ago, let's stick with it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 1, 2009 @ 15:27
6. — Many people in the world have learnt some English, but have no idea what a yard is. Nicolas1981 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Support, although in the end a clarification of what exactly a "first occurence" is would be needed (some articles are very very long, some have infoboxes with units, etc.).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:38, January 7, 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of this proposal

• I think this is very reasonable. It offers a clear-cut balance of middle ground. Saying that all units should always be linked is well-- ridiculous and not linking at all (even the common ones) is not reasonable either. Once an article is more than fair and balanced. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 21:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Note one of the explicit provisions of WP:Overlinking: "A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section." This suggestion goes beyond that. Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Gene raises a good point. Perhaps “…generally should not be linked again in the article…” would be better. Absolutisms should be avoided. I suggest that be quickly corrected, lest we rip a hole in the fabric of space-time with something that Gene and I agree should be done. Greg L (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 3:Almost never link

In articles which discuss units or systems of measurement directly, it may be desireable to link the first occurance of a unit name. However, units should never be linked in an article in situations where they are being used merely as a unit label.

Support of this proposal

#--Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

1. There would have to be a very good reason to link. A key problem is that the pages in question do not readily provide the assistance that a reader might want. I'm assuming that arcane historical facts about metre or stone are not the object. Tony (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of this proposal

• As far as I am concerned, this seems the most logical way to handle units. To me, they seem to be common enough that we should treat them like colors, days of the week, and other such common terms. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Like colors, days of the week? Holy cow, don't you think we use anything more complicated that "five inches" or "37 kilometers"?
  • Let's, for example, take stone, a unit of mass which is completely foreign to North American usage. Maybe one person in 10 has the foggiest notion what this is, one in 100 might have some feel for what a measurement expressed in those units means, and fewer than one in a thousand have it in their active vocabulary, as something they might use in their own conversation or writing.
  • And what about becquerels per cubic meter, or joules per kilogram-kelvin, whatever. "Common terms"? Get real. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Good point. Though I am not sure that phrases like "get real" engender a collaborative environment where people work out problems in a pleasant and congenial manner. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Far too many of the problems with our existing rules are a failure to consider anything but the most simplistic cases. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• I presume that stone would be converted to its metric equivalent. Why the fuss? Tony (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Providing no help whatsoever for many people. And--with a metric equivalent that isn't spelled out, but rather is only cryptically encoded in a symbol, according to the strange and inappropriate rules of MOSNUM. And that cryptic symbol itself SHOULD BE LINKED BECAUSE IT ISN'T SPELLED OUT IN FULL anywhere in the article. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, there is no general requirement that any conversions be included. There are a great many Wikipedia articles which do not include those conversions. And there are also articles in which conversions of some units to the SI equivalents are excluded. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Providing conversions is more useful than providing a link. If a single conversion does not help some people (besides stones, nautical miles spring into mind), multiple conversions should be provided (e.g. "11 st 4 lb (72 kg; 158 lb)" or "10 nm (18 km; 11,2 mi)"). — 3247 (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 4

[Proposal 4: removed per WP:SNOWBALL by Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC). Numbering preserved.]

Under no circumstances should a unit name be linked.

Support of this proposal

Discussion of this proposal

Proposal 5:Link uncommon units only

Common metric and standard units of length, weight/mass, and volume should not be linked, but uncommon, technical, or archaic units should be linked per standard linking guidelines.

• Note: If this guideline passes, we can hammer out a list of units which are common enough not to need linking; this is just to establish support for the principle rather than an exact list right now.

• Note: This is the current guideline at wp:overlink and that page gives examples of *common* units already.

Support of this proposal

1. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (I will keep my support of #2, both seem reasonable to me)
2. --Ben MacDui 12:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC) with #2 being my second choice.
3. --Of course. Still keen to pursue the idea of a centralised article to help readers acquire a feel for the standard metric and imperial units, where they wish. Tony (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
4. --Yes. This is what we need. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
5. No need to link inch but liking femtometer might not be a bad idea for the first occurrence in an article. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
6. -Support on the basis that this is the current guideline at wp:overlink with example common units. Lightmouse (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
   • • I remind everyone that the guidelines at WP:OVERLINK have been part of this discussion since the get-go, so Lightmouse's statement here is what? Nothing at all, really.
     • And for once the preliminary matters were taken care of, and notice of this discussion was placed at WT:OVERLINK. If we come up with any changes here, it can be changes at WP:OVERLINK, changes at WP:MOSNUM, or both. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - very sensible --Cybercobra (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose, they need to be both "common" in the particular context in which they are used, and unambiguous in that context. There is no need to link the common length units foot, inch, centimeter and meter and mass units pound and kilogram when talking about a persons height and mass. There is no need to link degrees Fahrenheit and degrees Celsius in the climate section of a geography article, nor millimeters of rainfall or centimeters of snowfall. Even liters per square meter might not need a link if they are accompanied by a conversion to length units, but there is no guarantee that they will be. But any article which uses not-universally-understood units like "lbf" should always be linking them, and also linking "lb" if they are used in the same article. Any article using tons, ounces, quarts, or gallons--all "common" units, but horribly ambiguous--can benefit from both links and visual disambiguation. What we need to be concerned with here is the problem that caused this discussion in the first place: How much of this do we dare consign to a bot-runner who will push things to every limit possible, and how much do we have to reserve for the discretion of live, thinking editors? Gene Nygaard (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of this proposal

• I think there is an important difference between "instruction creep" and reducing both the number of suggested actions and removing ambiguity and/or downright contradiction between existing ones. Ben MacDui 12:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• I propose that we merge this proposal with proposal 7. They are very similar. Proposal 5 is a radical proposal to mandate linking uncommon units, proposal 7 is merely the continuation of the existing guidance of optional linking of uncommon units. Lightmouse (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Is the gallon a "common" unit ? Is the meter a "common" unit ? Please make an explicit list of what units are "common". Thank you ! Nicolas1981 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The current guidance at wp:overlink gives examples of *common* units and has done for some time. Just click on the [2] at the end of the guideline. The list itself can be modified, of course. Lightmouse (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It does not do so in stating the rule. It does so only in a footnote, which is not standard Manual of Style procedure, not something the typical editor going to the Manual of Style is going to be looking for. And furthermore, as I have pointed out above, the wording of that page is every bit as much an issue here as the wording at the dates and numbers page. And it doesn't answer any of the questions above about gallons, for example--in mentioning English units, using the convoluted "imperial or US" description, it gives four units of length. It isn't really an acceptable list--but it shouldn't be, either. What is a "common" unit is context-dependent. It isn't predetermined by the name of the unit alone. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 6: Units of measurement require no special mention

Users should use context and common sense when linking units of measurement. Existing guidelines on linking and overlinking adequately cover this material, and no special mention of units of measurement should appear in any guideline. Any existing mentions of linking units or not doing so should be removed to prevent confusion.

Support of this proposal

1. Would I ever link inch? - no. However this seems to me a clear case of instruction creep. I trust the editors to make sensible decisions and even if they don't it is hardly a disaster.Dejvid (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of this proposal

• This idea seemed implicit in several comments in the discussion below. I do not personally support it, but it seems like a reasonable idea given some comments others have left. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ideally the same kind of common sense which applies to other words should apply to the names of units of measurement. The problem is that it isn't being applied. Editors seem to think of units as being special and thus they tend to attract overlinking. So some mention should be made (at least for now), if only to tell editors not to treat the units as special. JIMp _talk·cont 11:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 7: Do not mandate linking but discourage overlinking. Continue with current wp:overlink guidance 'generally don't link common units'

This proposal is to continue using the current guidance at wp:overlink. It says:
It is generally not necessary to link:

• Plain English words, including common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided).
  • Examples of common measurements include:
  • units of time (millisecond, second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year)
  • metric units of mass (milligram, gram, kilogram), length (millimetre, centimetre, metre, kilometre), area (mm², etc.) and volume (millilitre, litre, mm³, etc.)
  • imperial and US units such as inch, foot, yard, mile, etc.
  • combinations of the above (e.g., m/s, ft/s).
  • Links may sometimes be helpful where there is ambiguity in the measurement system (such as Troy weight vs Avoirdupois weight) but only if the distinction is relevant.
  • Likewise, in an article on units of measurement or measurement in general, such links can be useful.

This proposal is similar to proposal 5, however proposal 5 mandates linking to uncommon units. This proposal doesn't mandate anything.

Support of this proposal

• Support. There is no need to link a plain English word (e.g. river) even the first time in an article. Similarly, there is no need to link common units even the first time. Common units are so excessively linked that they are very high in the list of 'most linked' articles. We don't need to link the common units each time you describe the height of a mountain or the height of a person. Lightmouse (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support—I agree with Lightmouse, who has vast experience of this issue through his sustained hard work in auditing a number of important mattters in WP articles. Let's make our unique wikilinking system work optimally by not watering down the links we want readers to click on. Every link comes at a slight (dilutionary) cost that must be balanced with its utility and relevance to increasing the reader's understanding of the topic. Tony (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• The fact of the matter is that it was Lightmouse's bot run amok that triggered this whole discussion in the first place. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose—This is the right idea; it just sweeps up too much overly complex things, like mm³ and mm², ft/s, etc. This sort of notation (setting aside the issue of linking it) may be appropriate in clearly-scientific articles (not general science-related articles like Water). I’ve been active in simplifying crud like a first-occurrence of “m s⁻¹” to something more reasonable like “meter per second (m/s)”. Just because American school children and my own mother made a poor choice about the country in which to be born, we need to ensure our articles are fully accessible for everyone. Note also that we should not be be writing articles using advanced math notation typically found in science papers (m s⁻¹) for articles like Speed of light.

  “Science” is metric. So disciplines like chemistry or fuel cells are pure metric. Short of this, authors here have to resist the tendency to not provide a conversion and assume that everyone knows what a mm³ or “ft/s” is. Everyone does not. Everyone understands what “100 km/hr (62 mph)” means because either the primary or conversion is an every-day measure and unit of measure expressed in the format used in everyday life. Even if we link “m s⁻¹”, such an expression is unnecessarily complex in most articles. And even if America went metric and carpet was sold by the square meter, it would never be advertised and priced with “m²”, it would be “$ per square meter”.

  In our general-interest articles, common measures and the most common units used in daily life to express those measures need not be linked so long as it is the sole unit used in all English-speaking countries (every-day units of time), or a parenthetical conversion is provided. This would comprise common, every-day measures like “hour”, “second”, “0 °C (32 °F)”, “three meters (10 ft)”, “10 kg (22 lbs), “60 mph (97 km/hr)” (in an article on an American-made car), and “28 psi (190 kPa)”.

  I’m going to read through all these various proposals and make an *attempt* at tying it all together into a something that addresses our readers needs without making our science-related articles cumbersome and without making our general-interest articles inaccessible to large portions of our readership. Remember, linking (turning a word or two blue) has extraordinarily little footprint in articles, so there is no need whatsoever to cast an overly wide dragnet on units that should be exempt from linking; the truly-everyday stuff is sufficient.

  Finally, we should always, always write out the first occurrence of a unit of measure. Even in our computer articles, it should be “The WindowsPig 9000 was first introduced with 1 gigabyte (GB) of random access memory (RAM) before it was later configured with its standard 2 GB of RAM.” Greg L (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is riddled with nonsense.

Let's start with improper symbols like "km/hr" and "lbs" and the like. If you can't even follow the rules here on the talk page, I don't like you trying to write the rules.

Giving examples of conversions with undue precision in the conversion is never helpful.

Not all science is metric.

Much of what is metric is still in need of conversions. Nobody should ever be using creaky old cgs units from the dark ages without providing conversions to SI units. No "3.7 mGal", but rather "3.7 milligals (37 mm/s²)". Things like that.

Why wouldn't carpet be $10/m²? Even symbols such as ft³ and and the like are actually common in American usage.

Much of the "truly everyday" stuff is linked for purposes other than its familiarity. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of this proposal

• This ignores the myriad of conflicting guidelines set out above and does not tackle that issue. The problem here is that we have too many pages of guidelines that state different things. Woody (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Much of that problem is due to instruction creep for which we can thank a couple of editors.
• A great many of the common units are also ambiguous units in need of linking for disambiguation purposes. That solution just doesn't cut the mustard. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• “millisecond”? My wife has been married for 28 years to a mechanical engineer who worked in R&D for most of that time and she doesn’t know what a millisecond is. So that one is clearly over the top. She guessed “is it a millionth of a second?” Then she said “Is this one of those ‘dumb tests’ ?” “No honey.” “Yes it is; it’s one of those ‘my wife didn’t know what a millisecond is and she’s representative of the typical stupid person,’ things isn’t it??” “Nothing compares to your love baby.” Now look at what you guys got me into… Greg L (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 8: There is a distinction between linking spelled out words and linking symbols not otherwise explained

Normally, this wouldn't be a problem.

But it is a problem here, first of all, because of half-thought out rules at MOSNUM prohibiting the spelling out of the units, even on first appearance, when they appear only in conversions. That is, unless GregL's interpretation of "do not write over the heads of the readership" is correct, in which case what we have is a conflict in the rules about spelling out those units.

A second reason it is a problem is that many of our MOS rules are based on the premise that the readers of Wikipedia are too stupid to understand what the superscript 3 means in "ft³", and therefore we must allow the use of "cu ft". But if they don't understand ft³, they aren't going to understand the 2 in km² either. So symbol coming out of the blue (i.e., not accompanied by the appropriate spelled-out phrase) and containing a superscript needs to be linked.

The current wording of the MOS doesn't actually prohibit the use of ft³ as it once did. However, the commonly used template {{convert}} only gives results as "cu ft" and doesn't provide for any method to change that to "ft³". And that is relevant because of the Manual of Style provision that

• {{Convert}} or unit-specific templates from Category:Conversion templates can be used to convert and format many common units in accordance with this manual of style.

(Note also that there isn't any real basis for an assumption that using such templates will give results in accordance with the Manual of Style.)

Note that it's easy enough to fix {{convert}} so that it gives "ft³", "in³", etc. JIMp _talk·cont 11:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We should not use "ft³" because it is illegible. I don't think superscript notation for volumes expressed in American customary units is a good idea, because some readers may not have the math background to recognize the meaning of such units easily. If people insist on using superscripts in this situation, they should be legible: "ft³". --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support of this proposal

• Support Spelled-our names of units and symbols for them are two different things. We should not be lumping the two together indiscriminately. See more in the discussion below. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of this proposal

• What we really need to do is to fix the senseless rules about spelling out and not spelling out units of measures in the first place. These rules totally ignore the way that conversions are usually used. Most people only read one or the other of the units when a conversion is given—and there brains often do not do any processing whatsoever of the information given in the other units, just discarding it before it even gets into their short-term memory.
  • For example, if we have that some place X "is a village located 37 miles (58 km) from" Y,
    • Some people will read this as X "is a village located 37 miles from" Y
    • But others must first mentally expand the symbol km, then read it as X "is a village located 58 kilometers from" Y
  • Similarly, if we have that some place X "is a village located 58 kilometers (37 mi) from" Y,
    • Some people will read this as X "is a village located 58 kilometers from" Y,
    • But others must first mentally expand the symbol mi, then read it as X "is a village located 37 miles from" Y,

Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 9

Proposal 9: Withdrawn as it's essentially a subset of Proposal 10 below

(I will not even try to propose a specific wording, only to express my opinion.)

Linking "kilometre" in X is a village located 58 kilometers (37 mi) from Y is quite pointless, since virtually any person able to understand written English uses either the kilometre or the mile (or both) in everyday use. But if, for some reason, we were to only use one of these units, linking "kilometre" (the first time it is used) might be useful, for those who don't use it everyday.

I propose that we should not link units for which a conversion is provided to both sets of "everyday units", so to speak, i.e. to an unit in each of the columns of the following table:

Quantity	Group 1	Group 2
Length	millimetre, centimetre, metre, kilometre	inch, foot, yard, mile
Mass	milligramme, gramme, hectogramme, kilogramme, tonne (i.e. metric ton)	dram, ounce, pound
Time	second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year, decade, century, millennium
Temperature	degree Celsius	degree Fahrenheit
Speed	kilometre per hour	mile per hour
Energy	kilowatt-hour, kilocalorie
etc.	I hope you get the point

In other words, "Group 1" should comprise all and only those units an average European grandmother understands, and "Group 2" those which an average American grandmother understands, but unlike the current "common units" wording, they exclude the electron volt, the kelvin, and other such units which are commonly used in a particular context but not in everyday life. (I have almost surely failed this in my own table—can someone native to the US check whether there are too few or too many units in group 2?) And, of course, units should be linked when they're otherwise relevant to the context, e.g. in article about systems of measurement and the like. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 20:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 10: Tying all the principles of linking together

The first bullet point, below, may not make sense at first pass. Here is the logic: If we provide parenthetical conversions for familiar measures at every-day magnitudes (not the units of measure, such as kilogram or carats, but the measure, such as temperature and mass in familiar ranges), then there should really be no need for linking the unit of measure—regardless if it is metric or U.S. customary.

Example: older Americans will very often not understand that “kilogram” is a unit of mass, let alone have a flying clue as to its magnitude. But when common measures have accompanying conversions—like 80 lb which is the weight of a sack of concrete—that clearly clarifies potential ambiguity by instantly and intuitively providing the “ah Haa” for both the measure and its magnitude. This principle clearly won’t work with obscure and scientific units of measure. Remember, the principle is not that “everyone knows what a kilogram is”; it is “if someone like an American doesn’t understand 36 kg , they will always understand 36 kg (80 lb).

---

Linking of units of measure

• The first occurrence of a unit of measure should not generally be linked if it is a common measure expressed in every-day units of measure and a parenthetical conversion is provided. For instance, write Sacks of concrete premix in Germany are typically 25 kilograms (55 lb), whereas in…. Other common measures that should typically not be linked are as follows:
  • Speed or velocity: the common units kilometer per hour and miles per hour, but not feet per second nor kilometers per second
  • Temperature: the common units degree Celsius and degree Fahrenheit but not kelvin
  • Mass/weight: the common units kilogram, pound, gram, and ounce (provided the U.S. customary units are in the avoirdupois context)
  • Length: the common units meter/metre, foot, yard, centimetre/centimeter, inch, kilometer/kilometre, mile (statute)
  • Volume: the common units milliliter/millilitre, litre/liter, fluid ounce, quart, and gallon (provided the U.S. customary units are in the 1/32/128 ounce per liquid gallon context), but not cubic meter/metre, cubic feet, cubic inches, etc.
• Common units of time should not generally be linked since they are extremely familiar to all English-speaking peoples. Editors should not generally link second, minute, hour, day, week, month, (and year when in general, non-scientific contexts); but should generally link the first occurrence of units such as millisecond and microsecond.
• It is good practice to use the full unit name of units of measure throughout an article if the unit occurs infrequently enough that it would not make the article cumbersome to read. Where unit symbols are used in an article, always include the unit symbol parenthetically immediately after the first occurrence of the full unit name. Thus, editors should write The Banana Jr. 9000 computer’s stock configuration was 2 gigabytes (GB) of random access memory (RAM) before one later writes optional configurations offered RAM capacities as great as 64 GB.
• Except as exempted above, the first occurrence of a unit of measure should generally be linked. Write The light intensity over the metrology table was 800 lux (lx) before later writing The light intensity in the warehouse was satisfactory at 100 lx and the employer….
• In science articles and other articles where no parenthetical conversions are provided, always link the first occurrence of a unit of measure. Write the typical batch totals 2,500 kilograms (kg) and includes… before one later writes then 2 kg of polyglycerol polyricinoleate is added.
• Always use unit symbols in parenthetical conversions (not the full unit name) and, except as provided above, the unit symbols in conversions should generally be linked. Write The .450 ACP with factory ball ammunition develops a muzzle velocity of 830 feet per second (ft/s) (250 m/s) before later writing but the lightest bullets can generate velocities as great as 1,060 ft/s (320 m/s).

Support/Oppose for this proposal

• Support I am hoping this ties together many of the issues that are touched upon when we discuss units of measure and when to link them. Greg L (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support, mostly I think you pretty much have it nailed, but see comments in discussion section below. Mlaffs (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support the idea, though the wording might be made clearer and more concise (I'll give a try tomorrow, after a good sleep helps me completely recover from my hangover from the New Year celebration). -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. More of the typical instruction-creep overkill, attempting to be overly specific.
• Double-negatives don't fly. They have no place whatsoever in our guidelines.
• Inconsistent, non-parallel construction switches between the singular and the plural
• A great many of our articles include both the pound and the pound. Links aren't provided because these units are unfamiliar. Rather, the links are provided to help make it clearer that the two are different units of measure, and to link to a place where readers can find more information about what distinguishes one of them from the other.
• If the only use of either of those two units is as a symbol "lb" standing alone, because of weird MoS rules prohibiting the spelling out of the unit's name, then that should be linked because many people use "lb" when it is the less-common lbf, and if you don't have both of them in the article, it isn't evident. And "lbf" itself is unfamiliar enough in everyday as opposed to scientific usage, so that if that is the only way in which pounds appear in the article, that symbol should also be linked.
• A great many "scientific articles" do, and should, provide conversions of various sorts.
  • Of course, the initial problem is the invitation for arguments about the meaning of the vague term "scientific articles". It isn't necessary here, either. It doesn't matter what the reason is for not including unit conversions; what to do when there are no unit conversions should not depend on why there are no conversions.
  • Part of the problem here is a silly, unwarranted notion that the only conversions we have are between metric and English units (and the refusal even to simply call the English units that, rather having to throw in convoluted combinations such as "U.S. customary or imperial units"). That simply isn't true, and should never be assumed to be the only applications of unit conversions in our MoS.
• The use of "US customary" in characterizing these units is objectionable because what is being discussed is not limited to U.S. usage. Even worse, of course, would be using "imperial units" here.
• The principle of writing out units at least on first use should be every bit as applicable to units appearing as conversions as those appearing anywhere else.
  • That is especially true when the units appearing in parentheses are not the converted units but rather the originals, but the converted measurement is expressed first. There are lots of different reasons why the conversion is expressed first with the original measurements expressed in parentheses--these include WikiProject conventions for a particular groups of articles, and simply the whim of the author who put the measurements in in the first place, and every so often we get some editor running around trying to change articles in accordance with his or her belief that "metric units should go first" or whatever.
• Let's just be more explicit about that: The terminology in this proposal "parenthetical conversions" is nonsense. What is included parenthetically in not necessarily the conversion.
• The basic principle "the first occurrence of a unit of measure should generally be linked" should appear at the beginning of any such section, not a screen or two below a bunch of tedious over-specificity. That's just one of the many ways in which this whole proposal is sloppily written. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can't believe that I am agreeing with Mr. Nygaard, but do we really need an additional 438 words to try to avoid a few blue links. Link the first occurrence only. Five words and a period. The end. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• I have an even better suggestion; even five words is overkill:
  • Zero words here (i.e., remove what was here before)
  • Zero words about units of measure at Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, which is of course part of the discussion here because of the conflict of rules.
• Then just general don't link more than the first occurrence, and we don't need to encourage linking that (it will most likely be linked when it is appropriate, and it doesn't hurt if first occurrence is linked even if some wouldn't find it necessary. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • • On second thought, I'll agree with you on this one, MJCdetroit—with the proviso that the WP:OVERLINK page needs to be fixed accordingly. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of this proposal

Isn't this essentially the same as my Proposal 9, with just some more istruction creep about when to spell out the name?

As for the wording (but not the spirit, I think I understand what you mean) of it, taken literally it implies that we should have a link in three days if that's the first time we use the day because there's no conversion, whereas there needn't be any link in 32 cm (320 mm)^[1] because there is a conversion.

[1] Never seen anything like that on Wikipedia (until now), but I have seen a can or a bottle with something like 33 cl (330 ml) printed on its label. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 23:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed regarding time. I tried to fold that into conversions rather than treat it as a separate class. I will fix it with an added bullet point. Greg L (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• 1) We might want to add millilitre, pint, and quart to the common units for volume. 2) My one reservation is the one I'd raised earlier about specificity of language. The opening of the fourth bullet says "The first occurrence of a unit of measure should not be linked …", while the later sentence in that bullet says "Other common measures that need not be linked …". The first is prescriptive, while the second is suggestive. I still believe that a link to even a common measure is not harmful and could be helpful, so I'd rather we use need in both cases, so that this language could not be used as rationale for automated mass removal of links. Either way, the language needs to be consistent. Mlaffs (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree regarding quart. As for pint, perhaps it’s because I hate U.S. customary, or am not a domesticated kitchen type, or am not a drinker, but I barely know that there are two pints per quart. If I’m struggling (and I know my kids do too), then we best link—after all, it just turns text blue so there’s not much downside to linking; ere on the safe side. Man, I love SI. I added quart and some other units like milliliters and fluid ounces. I also addressed your should not issue. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Cool beans — I'd still prefer need not, but if the consensus is that links to common measures really are a bad thing, I'll fall in line. Frankly, I'm just happy to see a MOSNUM discussion mostly not degenerate into rhetoric and hyperbole ;>) Mlaffs (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(e.c.) As for pints, quarts and gallons, I wouldn't consider the link in I drank an imperial pint (0.57 l) of Guinness last night or A tank containing one U.S. liquid gallon (3.8 l) of gasoline evil, since these units shrink/grow when you cross the Atlantic westwards/eastwards; but I won't insist on this point. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 00:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I tried to address your point about different pint sizes, and I also tried to address some concerns of Mlaffs regarding overly restrictive verbiage. Greg L (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I hope I don’t loose any “support” votes here, but I think we might be able to get others on board—perhaps Gene too—if we link the first occurrence of the unit symbol of a conversion). Besides, I think what I had before was a brain-fart; if we’re not even going to spell out the unit name in the first instance of a unit conversion, it ought to be linked. Greg L (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What appears in parentheses isn't necessarily the conversion.
  • The first appearance of a unit of measure should generally be spelled out, no matter where it appears.
    • That would obviate, in many cases, the need to link any symbols for units of measure.
    • And even if there are cases where it isn't spelled out (e.g., it appears only in abbreviated form in an infobox or some other table), there isn't any real need to link symbols that are common in the context and that will generally be understood by most readers without a link.
  • As Jimp pointed out above, what is "common" (whether we are talking about spelled-out words or symbols for units is context-sensitive. Let's not lose sight of that fact, and try to make broad, over-general claims about what is "common". Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Quote "but not feet per second nor kilometers per second" Why ?! km/s is the only practical unit of measurement for space ballistics. fps is somewhat different because of multiple meanings (frames per second, feet per second). NVO (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• I can't see why a symbol is required in parentheses more than once after initially naming a unit. Who wants to see "2 gigabytes (GB)", "6 gigabytes (GB)", and "3 gigabytes (GB)" in succession, if they are the only times the unit occurs in an article (therefore not "cumbersome" to spell out always).
• "Cumbersome" sets too high a bar; it also depends on how common the symbol is. "Km" should be treated more liberally than a relatively unusual or specialised symbol.
• "Always write out the full unit name on at least the first occurrence—and often several times—before using the unit symbol."
• "If unit symbols are used in an article, always include the unit symbol parenthetically after each occurrence of the full unit name." I find it irritating to have to read the full name after I've been asked to remember the symbol in parentheses. Don't abbreviate if it's not boing to be used, is my by-line. The italicised "are: suggests that using unit symbols is not the default. Why?
• "at least" (italicisation unnecessary, IMO) and "and often several times" cause a redundancy issue.
• "Always" can probably be dropped. The use of this marker multiple times will weaken its effect. A guideline is a guideline.
• "Unless as exempted below, the first occurrence of a unit of measure should always be linked."—I strongly disagree that kilogram or kg should automatically be linked on first occurrence. { Only where there is no accompanying conversion, which is only in scientific articles. This is a first-occurrence issue and what is at stake here is just an issue of turning the thing blue for the benefit of Americans, who often don’t have any idea what a kilogram is. Greg L (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC) }
• The second and third bullets should be conflated and significantly shortened. The statements in the fourth bullet should be conflated and rationalised.
• The fifth bullet should come first.
• Why does the example give "feet per second", then "fps", then "ft/s"? Why is the linking of main units/symbols treated differently from that of converted unit names/symbols?Tony (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement in GregL comment "Only where there is no accompanying conversion, which is only in scientific articles" is totally false and unjustified.

Tony, it assumes "using unit symbols is not the default" for good reason. They aren't the default. Not in actual usage, and furthermore, not in the MoS rules, and they should not be in the MoS rules.

For many of the most common units, there is no reason for including the symbol in parentheses on first use even if the symbol for it is used later in the article. Just write "165 pounds (75 kilograms)" on first use, then later use "100 pounds (45 kg)" in a typical article, or use "100 lb (45 kg)" in a measurement-intensive article. Once people know what to expect, the symbols "kg" or "lb" will be recognized without including them parenthetically.

How would you deal with an article that used "65 pounds (290 newtons)" and later "85 pounds (380 newtons)"?

• First appearance: ______________
• Second appearance: ______________

I'd sure be interested in knowing how various editors here would fill in those blanks, including spelling and linking and use of symbols and the introduction of symbols parenthetically following first appearance and whatever, if they were copyediting an article containing those measurements. Feel free to add any additional parameters which could affect how you'd deal with them, such as type of article, presence of other measurements, frequency of measurements in the articles, and the like. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Tony, I’m burned out on this one and it’s my son’s last night here before he flies out to complete his training as a Navy Diver We’re watching Generation Kill together right now. It’s getting late here. If you can improve what I got above without loosing any “support” votes, give it a whirl. Greg L (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  P.S. As for the “fps”, that was just my flat-sloppy work. Now fixed. I also douched the “several times” (for reinforcing the unit symbols). You raised a number of good points. Feel free to tinker wherever you think you can build towards a greater consensus. Greg L (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 10, alternative wording

• Spell out and (except as noted below) link the full name of each unit of measurement on its first occurrence; if the symbol is also used in the article, add it between parentheses next to the first occurrence; subsequent occurrences should not be linked, and may use either the name or the symbol:^[1]

  The minimum current a human can feel is thought to be about 1 milliampere (mA), but currents up to 5 mA are typically harmless.

• Very common units need not be linked, even on their first occurrence, in the following cases:
  • Units of time in widespread everyday usage throughout the English speaking population should not be linked unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article.
  • A unit in the SI or accepted for use with the SI, which is in widespread everyday usage among the general population outside of the United Stated, should generally not be linked if each occurrence of it in the article is accompanied by a conversion to a customary unit in widespread everyday usage in the U.S., and vice versa. For example, no links to units are needed in:

    The sacks of concrete premix in America can be be as great as 80 pounds (36 kg).

    X is a village located 34 kilometres (21 mi) from Y.

  • Units which are in everyday usage, and hence generally do not need to be linked per the previous point, include:
    • Units of time such as the second, the minute, the hour, the day, the week, the month, the year, the decade, the century, and the millennium, but not the fortnight, the millisecond, the microsecond, etc.
    • ...
    • (U.S. liquid) pint, quart, and gallon;
    • ...
  • Nevertheless, linking pint, quart and gallon may be useful, because there are both imperial and U.S. customary units with these names and different values. A disambiguation should be used the first time one of those units is used:

    One imperial pint (0.57 l) of beer can cost as much as five euros.

    The capacity of its fuel tank is 10 U.S. gallons (gal) (38 l). (link optional)

    U.S. pint, U.S. quart and U.S. gallon should be assumed to refer to the liquid measures, not the dry ones, unless otherwise specified.

---

[1] Usually, the full name is preferable if it is not too long and the unit is only used a few times throughout the article, whereas the symbol is preferable for units with very long names (e.g. MeV rather than megaelectron volt, km/h rather than kilometre per hour) and units which are used several times in the same sentence.

-- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 13:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I could support this proposal, but the example of GB is particularly unsuitable, because of its ambiguity. Should be replaced by a less controversial example, such as: A fuse breaking at 15 ampere (A) is common. −Woodstone (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments. This is much more cohesive and better written. It flows much more easily from one part to the next. It states the general rule at the beginning, rather than hiding it two or three screens further down the page. Even when the list is populated, it won't be bogged down in quite as much overspecificity, and it doesn't state exceptions before it states the rule. Furthermore, while the little-ever-used dry gallons and its slightly-more-common pint and quart subdivisions are limited in use to commodities such as grains and oilseeds, the "liquid" gallons aren't limited to liquids. They are also used for gases, for containers including those not primarily used to hold liquids such as garbage bags, etc.

• U.S. gallons almost never need to be disambiguated as "liquid" gallons; the U.S. dry gallon is hardly ever used; even in cases where it could be used, it would usually be called a half-peck or the numbers would be expressed as "12 dry quarts" rather than "three dry gallons" or in fractions of a bushel. Furthermore, there aren't likely to be any Wikipedia articles other than those discussing the units in which the U.S. dry gallon is used. Keep in mind that whatever we write will also be used as a rule by example.
  • Dunno about these specific point about US units, as I'm Italian. (That's why I didn't even try to write down the list myself.) -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Your examples of the use of links for disambiguation purposes would be better linked to imperial pint and U.S. gallon rather than pint and gallon. It doesn't matter (yet) in these particular examples; it will matter when someone gets around to anchoring the redirects to point to the appropriate section in the redirect article.
  • Agreed (I didn't do that because of where they redirect, but I think MOS:LINK#Precision applies). -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• There isn't really any need to use "kilogram (kg)" before using "kg" later in the article, but the way this is written we would need to. That is a special problem because places such as good article and featured article review pages are full of anally retentive editors when it comes to treating the wording of the MoS as gospel.
  • Well, after all, readers will likely be able to figure that out in sentence such as A foo's mass is 57 kilograms, whereas a bar's mass is 97 kg., but I was thinking about less obvious symbols such as lb for the pound. Which wording would you suggest? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• It still suffers from the undue, improper specificity in identifying units as "a U.S. customary unit in widespread everyday usage in the U.S." (emphasis added).

• One of the biggest ambiguities is not in the size of a particular unit of mass, but at the higher level of what quantity (in the metrology sense not well explained there, perhaps better distinguished by the use of this term in the table at SI#Units) is being measured. That is especially evident in tons, which include numerous units of mass, numerous units of volume, numerous units of force, numerous units of energy, a few more of power, and whatever. And in the case of pounds, this is the real ambiguity we are most likely to encounter in Wikipedia articles. We have thousands of articles using both pounds as units of mass and pounds-force as well. We ought to be making clear that they are different by our visual disambiguations (different symbols, always identifying pounds-force as such, etc.), and we ought to be providing the appropriate links for any readers interested in delving further into what the actual distinctions between them are.
  • Well, a sentence using ton, in which it's not clear whether it's mass, volume, or what else, should be reworded anyway. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Considering all the points listed here, especially "need not be linked if each occurrence of it in the article is accompanied by a conversion to a U.S. customary unit in widespread everyday usage in the U.S., and vice versa" how would you copyedit an article using "65 pounds (290 newtons)" and later "85 pounds (380 newtons)"?

  First appearance: ______________

  Second appearance: ______________

Include both links, wording, use of symbols, the whole shebang.

Would it matter if this were the only two uses in the article, or there were a dozen more? Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

First appearance: 65 pounds-force (lbf) (290 newtons), second appearance: 85 lbf (380 N) if it occurs in the same paragraph, and maybe even if it's in the same section, 85 pounds-force (380 newtons) if it is farther down below. (Yes, the ) ( looks silly, but I have no better idea.) Rationale: the pound-force and the newton aren't units my grandma is able to understand, even with a conversion, so link on the first occurrence; lbf is a counter-intuitive symbol. (I might do without the symbol in parentheses if that symbol is never used in the article.) -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to address some of the points. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I like what you have above, Army. But the list needs to be fleshed out. I would propose that it be kept very, very short. Attempts to broaden it on the assumption that “everyone knows this ‘n’ that” will undoubtedly prove problematic. I think Gene missed the point with his observation about how links are required because of distinction between pound (force) and pound (mass). If the article talks about The hero lifted a 100 kilogram (220 lb) rock over his head and…, no one is confused even though there exists on Earth the existence of Pound sterling and the pound-force; the context and the pairing make it sufficiently clear. To the extent that the guy can dig up more grey areas, is why we should use the caveats generally in the above div-box; if it is an article where obviousness of what is meant is lacking, then link it. (I just added a “generally” to address this.) Accordingly, here is a sandbox for us to work on and eventually add to your div box. What the below list means, as applied project-wide, is that if one has an article, for instance, on automobile speeds, one need not link km/hr and mph; the context is clear. If one is in a marine-related article and the units are nautical miles per hour v.s. km/hr, then we link. The point here is to sweep up all the common measures in their every-day, real-life units in every-day magnitudes. Greg L (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Speed or velocity: the common units kilometer per hour and miles per hour, but not feet per second nor kilometers per second
• Temperature: the common units degree Celsius and degree Fahrenheit but not kelvin
• Mass/weight: the common units kilogram, pound, gram, and ounce (provided the U.S. customary units are in the avoirdupois context)
• Length: the common units meter/metre, foot, yard, centimetre/centimeter, inch, kilometer/kilometre, mile (statute)
• Liquid volume: the common units milliliter/millilitre, litre/liter, fluid ounce, quart, and gallon (provided the U.S. customary units are in the 1/32/128 ounce per liquid gallon context), but not cubic meter/metre, cubic feet, cubic inches, etc.

BTW, I added and then stripped out Pressure: the common units kilopascal and pound per square inch because I realized that though men typically have no problem with it, women sometimes do. The downside of leaving off pressure? A one-time occurrence of one word that is blue instead of black—hardly much of a downside. I think we need to ensure the tenor of our crusade against over-linking doesn’t get out of hand and cause the pendulum to swing too far to the other side here. Greg L (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As to your last point about linking gallons, remember: my above list is specific that the measure is liquid volume; why screw around with more blue if the context is clear? If one is on an article where dry measurement is the topic, then link it. Note that in the real world in the U.S., the bushel is common; real-world usage of a dry gallon is vanishingly rare, if not extinct. I don’t see the need for the last bullet point. Perhaps it could be revised to explain the point that if one has an article that doesn’t fit squarely within the scope of the short list (British booze), then link. Greg L (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to address that, but, not being an American myself, I'm not sure whether this is the best way to do that. (Feel free to edit my wording to improve it.) -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 20:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'd add to the above list at the very least the millimetre, the centilitre, and the tonne/metric ton. Maybe also the hectogram (in very common use, at least in Italy where it's shortened to etto in common speech, and IIRC also in France, for goods such as ham, cheese, etc.), the milligram (the most common unit used for medicinals), and/or the hectolitre (commonly used for olive oil, wine, etc. on wholesale). Maybe someone from metric countries other than Italy can tell which of these units are in common use there, too? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 20:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There is still an undesirable double negative: "... units of time ... such as second ... (but NOT millisecond ...) should NOT be linked ..." Perhaps better keep it general (no examples) there and defer all examples to the "list goes here" section. As to content, I think cubic metre is quite common (for water, gas and buildings). −Woodstone (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 00:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that where this ends up, we will likely want to have a table of the inclusive cases of when a measurement unit is to be provided with conversion, and with linking, with all other units not linked implicitly implied to be both converted and linked. This avoids the double-negative language and provides explicitly clear guidance for the basic units. --MASEM 21:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We should also decide what to do with links to multiples and submultiples of SI units. Some of them redirect to the order of magnitude (e.g. microsecond), some redirect to the base unit (e.g. milliampere) or to the "multiples" section thereof (e.g. milligram), others are stubs (e.g. millimetre). -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 01:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My proxy issued to Greg L

Can't possibly wade through all this arcane back and forth. This is Greg L's home turf, I trust him implicitly to home in on a good solution. So Greg, you may use my "non-vote" as you see fit.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, thanks. But I do think we’ve got a good thing going here: take input from everyone, throw out a proposal, more input, then someone else—like Army did here—takes the ball and runs with it. I like Army’s organization and writing style in his offering. When I get off my laptop here and get to my main authoring machine (bigger screen, full keyboard, multi-clipboard, macros), I’ll try to tweak what Army gave us—adhering closely to his framework. And I’ll try to not spend too much time at it. That’s one reason my first proposal hadn’t been highly polished for organization, grammar, and syntax: if I invest too much effort getting something just right, it’s harder to accept the criticisms and listen to input. I’ll wait a bit here for feedback on Army’s version; maybe it will gain a clear consensus with a day of input and tweaking. Greg L (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Under Pressure

Once more, I read it all. I very much like Army's proposal, but for me, it's still not enough. I still need more instruction. My main area of interest is scuba diving and (as Greg's son will tell him when he finishes his Navy Diver training), the topic is intimately connected with pressure. And there lies the rub. The source material uses a proliferation of units: bars, atmospheres (ATA), pounds-force per square inch (psi or sometimes psig), feet of sea water (fsw - since pressure depends exactly on depth), even millimetres of mercury ! (mmHg), since all of these have been in common usage in the last hundred years. Nobody uses the SI unit, kiloPascals (contrary to what Greg thought!).

I'm interested primarily in making articles understandable to the casual reader and useful to a diver who wants to use them as a reference. In a given article, I can usually settle on bar (linked on first use) with conversions to psi for US readers (or vice-versa for articles that started in psi). I really don't want to use kPa, since (a) most people don't know what it is and (b) nobody in the field uses it, so not even a diver can visualise it. However, when I cite a statement, I am often aware that anyone who reads the source will see pressure in units different from those used in the article.

So I might write in an introduction, "The pressure at 10 metres (33 feet) depth is 2 bar (30 psi)". The other way round would be "The pressure at 33 feet (10 metres) depth is 30 pounds per square inch (psi) (2 bar)", and then use the abbreviations throughout. I can accept the ") (" as ugly, but necessary. But I really need a guideline that I can refer to that produces the above as the natural way of doing it - particularly when I take the article to GA and have to defend not using kiloPascals to all the scientists who've never done a dive in their life. Even then, I still have the problem of the sources using ATA, fsw, etc.

About the only way that I can see to provide an understandable, fully-usable resource, is to create a new article, "Units of Pressure" and explain how each of the possible units relate to each other. Then link to it in the "See also" section of each article that needs it. Just my 2 [[Cent (United States coin)|cents]] (1.3 [[Penny (British decimal coin)|pence]]) --RexxS (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There used to be a section somewhere in the MoS or in one of its subpages, stating that things should be measured in the units which are commonly used for those things. It gave the example of the Hubble constant which should be measured in kilometres per second per megaparsec, rather than in hertz. But I can't find either "hertz" or "megaparsec" on either WP:MOS or MOS:NUM, so, whatever became of that (very reasonable) recommendation? I suggest it should be restored. It should also apply, for example, on display sizes measured in inches, blood pressure measured in mmHg, diamonds measured in carats, and the like (including the case you suggest). -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of that section never was to make sure that those units are used; they will be. The only purpose of that section was to prohibit conversions to other units such as the modern International System of Units, and in several cases it has been used to prohibit conversions to other units which are also used. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And kilopascals (note the proper capitalization) are used in this context, despite the unsubstantiated claims of RexxS. I've been involved in other arguments along those lines; in one case, after lengthy discussion the editor who had been trying to preclude the conversion I was adding to a featured article was forced to admit that not only are those units used, but they are in fact recommended by the professional organization involved. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, there already is {{Pressure Units}} transcluded at the bottom of these articles. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That template does not appear in every article using units of pressure, and I sure hope that it never does. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant articles about units of pressure. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 18:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are by definition where non-specialists and specialists interact. Specialists are, understandably, authors/readers whereas the ordinary person is merely a reader. There is nothing wrong with saying that specialist terms have a substantial role. But it would be a logical error to say that the presence of specialist terms requires a ban on universal terms just because specialists aren't accustomed to seeing them in a nerds monthly magazine. Lightmouse (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Along those lines, many people fail to consider that the interdisciplinary nature of the SI is as important as its international nature. People who are technically literate in any field will understand the SI units if we present conversions to them, but they might not understand the arcane, not-in-general-use units peculiar to the jargon of some specialized field of activity. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't talk for everybody, but as for me, if I am looking up how far a certain star is, I would expect (and prefer) to find that information in light years, rather than in metres. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 18:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but if you believe the astronomers, they never use light years (unless they are converting measurements for the rabble, of course). So according to the beliefs of some of the denizens here, we should never use them either.

Of course, even if some astronomers still think that ergs per second are the cat's meow when it comes to the measurement of the power of a star, most people are more likely to understand watts. And when such measurements are expressed in meters here, it is of course generally done with the appropriate prefix (and for lengths, the existing SI prefixes allow the breadth of the universe to be expressed with no more than three digits to the left of the decimal point). Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That was just an example, sorry if I picked the wrong one, but there are many others. Masses of subatomic particles are usually measured in GeV/c², and those of molecules in atomic mass units, not in yoctograms. (And the parsec isn't a SI unit, either.) -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 20:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The electronvolt and the unified atomic mass unit are "acceptable for use with the SI". But neither light-years nor parsecs nor ergs per second are. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I'm rather surprised that someone can claim "I still need more instruction" [emphasis as in the original]. Not even I myself am very convinced of the large amount of feature creep in my proposal (which I tried to keep to a minimum), but the common opinion is that leaving any hole in the MoS is going to generate edit wars on any part of any article which happens to fall in that hole, which would be a worse evil. But really does nobody believe that the current bloat of the MoS (66 kilobytes only in the MOS:NUM subpage) isn't enough? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 18:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the Weather Network, here near my home in the Front Ranges of the Canadian Rockies. the atmospheric pressure is 102.81 kPa, the temperature is -21°C, and the winds are from the SW at 11 km/h. According to my home weather station, the pressure is 101.8 kPa, the temperature is -18.3°C, and the winds are from the SW at 4 km/h. Of course people use kPa for pressure, it's an SI standard unit for pressure. It's just that a lot of people are rather antediluvian when it comes to units of measure. Atmospheric pressure at sea level is 101.325 kPa. Memorize that number, it's important.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(The built-in manometer in my watch addresses the problem of bars vs pascals in the most clever way: it gives a number labeling it both as hectopascals and millibars. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 01:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

But pay attention to what RockyMtnGuy is saying. Neither his weather reports nor his home weather station uses "hectopascals", a pseudo-SI use of an unfamiliar prefix, which the CGPM should have had enough sense to consign to the same fate as the prefix "myria-", just to be able to hang onto an obsolete unit by cloaking it in a new name. They use "kilopascals"—which is what he was syaing. Your watch doesn't address the choice-of-prefixes issue very well. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are so vehemently against the SI unit hPa, which is quite commonly used for wheather forcasts. See for example eurometeo. −Woodstone (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• To all One thing you can count on is that anything I propose won’t be touching upon ‘messy’ measures like pressure.

  RexxS: You obviously read my post and then elected to ignore my point, which was to steer clear of the fallacy that certain, messy measures like pressure and its associated units are *universally understood*. Bear in mind that the whole purpose of this proposal is to address when and when not to link. I have no interest in getting into another MOSNUM “Unit Jihad” here over bar and atmospheres and kPa. Besides, a little voice whispering in my ear tells me that you don’t really “still need more instruction”; I think you kinda sorta have an idea of how things should be in your edits. If I’m wrong with that assumption, then I suggest you do more reading here and less preaching.

  The point of exempting some combinations of units for some measures in some contexts is that verbiage with a first-occurrence instance such as Samson lifted a 100 kilogram (kg) (220 lb) rock above…, does not need linking because the nature of the measure and its magnitude is understood by all English-speaking cultures due to the accompanying conversion and the fact that these are familiar measures where at least one of the units is exceedingly familiar to the reader. The same goes for an expression like The Navy Diver is 5 foot–10 5⁄8 inches (1.79 m) tall; the nature of the measure and its magnitude is clear from context and the fact that at least one of the units is familiar. If someone wants to raise exceptions such as the ‘quart’ the African tribe in central Congo that speaks in tongue clicks uses when making toad poison for their darts, then one is clearly not referring to “U.S. customary units are in the 1/32/128 ounce per liquid gallon context” and the unit certainly does need to be linked (or entirely explained within the article you are writing). The same goes for the U.S. dry gallon that the farmers’ wives sell their special, blue ribbon-winning blend of grains at the county fair. Since that isn’t the exempted context, link it.

  What I propose will steer clear of all this controversial stuff, not dive headfirst into the middle of it; you can count on that. If you want to discuss units of pressure, keep in mind that it is a separate topic from the matter at hand precisely because it results in controversy. Greg L (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  P.S. As for SCUBA diving, RexxS, and how my son will be telling me things about that fascinating world, I too am a certified SCUBA diver. Moreover, one of my first patents (maybe the first) was for a new computer algorithm to calculate the pressure/temperature/density relationship of highly non-ideal gases. I’ve likely forgotten more about pressure than you will ever learn in your life. Greg L (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sincerely sorry, Greg, that I came across as condescending. That was never my intention. If it helps to give some perspective, my degrees (dating back to 1972) are in Natural Sciences (Physics) and Electrical Engineering, and I've been a scuba diving instructor at national level for almost 20 years now. So I don't suppose a pissing contest with you youngsters about who has forgotten most about pressure would be productive <grin>. I did realise after I'd posted that I'd made the assumption that scuba wasn't your field (the comment about kilopascals), but I'm happy to take that back. The point remains (however badly I expressed it) that no diver in the world uses a submersible pressure gauge marked in kilopascals and no diver calculates pressure in those units. For Gene, take a look at the 106 references in Oxygen toxicity. Not one mentions kilopascals anywhere and yet I had to use xx bar (yy kPa) throughout. Greg's right - I do know how I want to show pressure units. I really would prefer to express pressure in psi (for the US readers) and bar (for most others), but not in kPa - and certainly not all three! There is no problem with depth: feet and metres are the familiar units in the field. It's just that one of them happens be an SI unit. Surely I'm not alone in this? There must be other fields where there are two common units (US/non-US) and neither is SI? --RexxS (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I’m no youngster. And, unfortunately, you weighed in on a subject here that is well beyond the scope of what we’re trying to deal with. The very nature of your post self-referentially made it quite clear that pressure can not to be one of the measures that is exempted from being linked. Further, I appreciate it when editors are as up front as possible with what they mean; your “I still need more instruction” didn’t meet my (nor some others here) *grin tests* given the rest of your post, but then it could simply be that what we’ve got here is "failure to communicate". Water under the bridge now. Can we move on? Greg L (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• The failure to communicate is my fault entirely and I hope you'll accept my sincere regrets that I don't express myself as well as I would wish. When you get to my age, you'll take being called a "youngster" as a compliment. If you want to move on and just discuss linking, then surely the issue of what is most useful for the reader is paramount. I'm no fan of overlinking and can see that linking only for the first occurrence of an uncommon unit is useful, and of course spell it out in full at that first occurrence. It then merely an issue of the editor deciding what is uncommon. Personally I'd just use a rule of thumb, that if I had to explain the unit when I was teaching the subject, it should be linked on first occurrence. Nevertheless I'd be quite happy to go along with any consensus on a list of either "common" or "uncommon" units. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your heartfelt post. What do you think of “Proposal 11”, below? Greg L (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I like it very much, Greg. I admit I had to look up U.S. customary unit, but having worked through several examples in my mind, it always seems to produce the outcome I would pick as most useful. Kudos to you (and to Army as well, I think). I know it's not in keeping with MoS, but I'd love to see more examples spelled out. I doubt many others would agree with me though. One small point: I assume that the first occurrence of MeV would be linked (as an abbreviation for the reasons given); Am I right to think that it would have to be piped to either MeV#As a unit of energy or MeV#As a unit of mass depending on context? Count me in as Support. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• As for MeV, most articles using it as a unit of mass either explicitly call it MeV/c², or say a mass corresponding to a rest energy of 0.511 MeV, or Example text, etc., but piping to MeV#As a unit of mass is useful anyway, especially in the first and third case above. As for MeV#As a unit of energy, there's little point, as the first sentence of that article is In physics, the electron volt (eV) is a unit of energy.. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 11

The premisses underlying this proposal are fourfold:

1. Units of measure should at first be spelled out and unit symbols formally introduced before being employed. Too many of our articles will state something like The Banana Jr. 9000 computer came with 512 MB of RAM without once writing out what “MB” stands for. It helps to use the full unit name since unit symbols like “lx” and “MB” are ‘pronounced’ in our minds as we read them (“lux” and “megabytes”, respectively here). Requiring readers to click on a link to learn such an elemental point is a frustrating waste of time. Although the exclusive use of unit symbols might be a perfectly acceptable practice for specialty magazines like PC World, such a practice is inappropriate in a general-interest encyclopedia. Knowledge of the symbols representing specialty terminology should not be assumed.
2. Units should generally be linked. Although it might seem obvious that “all readers know what 2 m and 35 kg means,” (or for that matter, seem like “all readers know what 2 metres and 35 kilogrammes means”), this is not the case. Americans—particularly older Americans—are unfamiliar with the SI and will often not only not understand what the magnitude of the measure is, they will often not even understand the nature of the measure! This is aggravated by the fact that “metre” and “kilogramme” are not the official spellings in the U.S. Further, the term “tonne” is not is not at all recognized in the U.S., where the unit is known as the “metric ton.”
3. To avoid overlinking, there is no point to linking units that all English-speaking cultures routinely use in daily, non-specialized life, such as “hour” or “minute.” Further, although many Americans might not understand what a kilogram is (or conversely, an Italian primary school child might not know what a “pound” is), the nature and magnitude of certain measures are obvious when the primary unit of measure is accompanied by a conversion; the expression individual sacks of concrete premix in America can be be as great as 80 pounds (36 kg) is always understood because at least one of the units is perfectly familiar and the context is clear.
4. Our guidelines should do a better job of explaining the rationale underlying them. Some of the examples and verbiage in the following proposal might seem like it is unnecessarily hammering one or more points home. Remember that manuals of style at newspapers and news agencies, like the Associated Press’ manual of style, are written for professional writers and editors, most of whom have journalism degrees. Wikipedia is contributed to by diverse peoples from all over the world, some of whom will be trying their hand at technical writing for their very first time. The logic underlying many of our guidelines that might seem blindingly obvious to some experienced editors (or some of the regulars here on WT:MOSNUM) is not necessarily understood by everyone who comes to MOSNUM (or are referred to MOSNUM) for guidance. Further, it is helpful if the rationale underlying guidelines is clear so that editors can better resolve disputes on the respective article talk pages rather than come here for assistance in resolving conflict.

Linking units of measure and unit symbols

• On the first occurrence of a unit of measure in the prose of an article, editors should generally spell out the full name of a unit of measure and, except as exempted below, should link to its respective article; e.g. The NEMA 5-15R duplex receptacle can be wired to deliver a continuous current of 15 amperes via each of its two sockets. Subsequent occurrences can use either the name or the symbol.^[1]
• If the symbols for units of measures (unit symbols) are later used in an article, it is often useful to parenthetically append the unit symbol after the first occurrence of the full unit name, especially for units with counterintuitive symbols (e.g. lb for the pound) and units which may be unfamiliar to a general audience (e.g. MeV for the megaelectron-volt):

  The minimum current a human can feel is thought to be about 1 milliampere (mA), but currents up to 5 mA are typically harmless.

• Editors should generally use unit symbols in parenthetical conversions (not the full unit name) and, except as exempted below, the unit symbols in conversions should generally be linked. Write The .450 ACP with factory ball ammunition develops a muzzle velocity of 830 feet per second (ft/s) (250 m/s) before later writing but the lightest bullets can generate velocities as great as 1,060 ft/s (320 m/s).

   

Exemptions

• To avoid overlinking, the first occurrence of very common units should generally not be linked unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article. Such units are as follows:
  • Time There is no need to link common units of time that are extremely familiar to all English-speaking peoples. Editors should not generally link second, minute, hour, day, week, month, and year; but should generally link the first occurrence of units such as millisecond and microsecond.
  • Plane angle As with common units of time, there is no need to link angles in degrees; e.g. a 90‑degree turn and shot at a 45° trajectory. This advise does not apply to less familiar units for plane angle, such as radians and percent.
  • Familiar measures with accompanying conversions There is no need to link when a parenthetical conversion accompanies the primary unit of measure, provided the following three conditions have been met: 1) one of the units is part of the SI or is accepted for use with the SI and it is in widespread everyday usage among the general population outside of the United States, and 2) is accompanied by a U.S. customary unit that is in widespread everyday usage in the U.S., and 3) the units are the ones typically used in that context.

    These examples: Samson lifted a 100 kilogram (kg) (220 lb) rock above his adversary’s head — U.S. Air Force pilots may be no taller than 6 foot–7 inches (2.00 m) — Sacks of concrete premix in America can be be as great as 80 pounds (36 kg) — By January 2009, retail gasoline prices in the U.S. soon had fallen to $1.499 per gallon (€0.291/L), and Gumpleskirken is a village located 19 kilometres (12 mi) south of Vienna do not need linking because the nature of the measure and its magnitude is clear from the context and at least one of the units is exceedingly familiar to any reader.

    Units that are in everyday usage and are exempt from linking when paired with a conversion include the following:

• Length: millimeter (or -metre), centimeter, meter, kilometer; inch, foot (international), yard (international), and mile (statute/international); not micrometers, fathoms, etc.
• Mass/weight: gram (or gramme), kilogram, metric ton (or “tonne”), ton (short), ounce (avoirdupois), pound (avoirdupois); not grains, carats, etc.
• Speed or velocity: kilometer per hour; mile per hour; not feet per second nor kilometers per second, etc.
• Volume: milliliter (or -litre), centiliter, liter; ounce (U.S. fluid), quart (U.S. fluid), gallon (U.S. fluid); not cubic meter, cubic feet, cubic inch, U.S. dry measures, etc.
• Temperature: degree Celsius; degree Fahrenheit; not kelvin, Rankine, etc.

---

[1] Usually, the symbol is preferable in formulas, pictures, tables and infoboxes, whereas the name is preferable in prose, unless it is very long or the same unit is used several times in the same sentence.

Support/Oppose for this proposal

• Support (except for the minor points below.)-- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 02:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support This is a product of Army1987’s efforts and mine so I am no-doubt partial to it. But it seems sensible to me. Further, it is subject to more revisions per discussions, below. 03:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Again 738 words to avoid a few blue links. And what's with the abbreviations/units symbols in the parenthesis right next to the spelled out words? Our readers can figure out if 5 feet (1.5 m) was used in one sentence and 10 ft (3.0 m) was used a few sentences later that the "ft" is referring to feet. Really, they can. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • But not all of them will be able to figure out if we wrote 190 pounds (86 kg) in one sentence and 220 lb (100 kg) five sentences later, or if we wrote 2.3 million electron volts in a section and 0.511 MeV three screenfuls later. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No kidding. The test isn’t to see how much “readers can figure out” when important information is omitted. Our job is to write clearly so there is minimum confusion. It is only common sense to parenthetically explain that (lb) is the symbol for “pound”. How the hell are some readers supposed to divine that L and B are symbols for “pound”(?); neither letter can be found in “pound.” Greg L (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Still far too much instruction creep, still self-contradictory, still in need of copyediting for parallel construction. Still suffering from improper overspecificity with regard to "U.S. customary units". Now unnecessarily getting into rule by example spelling choices as well. There is no reason to require a parenthetical (kg) before using it; whether or not we should permit it is an open question. But most of all, just too much, period. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. As far as I have been able to test, this proposal always produces the result that I would choose as most useful to the general reader. Clearly meets all three tests in WP:CREEP#Avoiding instruction creep, so not even the anarchists can raise a valid objection. --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as phrased. Not a bad idea; I would support if this were phrased as a suggestion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I've searched for "always", "never", "shall" and "must", finding no occurrence of any of these words in the gold-bordered div. [I think it should be forbidden to use these words in guidelines.] There also are enough many occurrences of "generally", "usually", etc. in it. What else should be done for it to be "phrased as a suggestion"? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You don't need "always" or "never" for a bot-runner hell-bent on removing any blue from his pages from taking the ball and running with it. You need the explicit indications that it is something that requires the judgment of a live editor.
    • But let me address some other points necessary for it to be a serious suggestion. These will probably be entirely different from what PMAnderson had in mind:
      1. What does this replace? Or is it just piled on top of everything else?
      2. What coordinating changes must be made at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)?
      3. What coordinating changes must be made at Wikipedia:Manual of Style?
      4. What coordinating changes must be made at Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context?
    • NOTE that all of those pages must be part of what was characterized ab initio as a "coordinated discussion" here. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• That is totally absurd, Gene. According to your stated logic, we can’t make progress on anything until you get satisfaction on everything and simultaneously harmonize four venues! That is completely unfeasible (which is precisely why you suggested it). Nothing would get accomplished if everyone here had that sort of attitude. As you have amply demonstrated above, it’s hard enough to get anything accomplished at just one venue. The operative words here are “cooperation” and “compromise.” And pardon me all over the place for believing that your supposed objections, above, are nothing but red herrings intended to impeded progress. The only options you like are *your way* or *no prescribed way* (which are one in the same for you). Face it, you like to edit a particular way, that way is contrary to what most editors belive is wise, and the most frustrating thing—from your point of view—is those damned bots enforcing common-sense guidelines. Wikipedia has 47,476,852 registered users (including one Gene Nygaard). Thank heavens for bots: they’re the only thing that keeps Wikipedia from being mucked to the point our articles cause unnecessary confusion and look like hammered dog shit. Greg L (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Gene, I answered your question even before you asked it (at #Why?). -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 13:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Doesn't feel unnecessarily creepy to me at all — in fact, I think it has just the right amount of creep. Sure, not all editors are going to follow what's proscribed/suggested here. Heck, most of them probably won't. But we need a set style, regardless, if only in the faint hope that it will avert wars that might otherwise develop amongst the people who really care about it. Even if all we'd achieved out of this was consistency amongst the various pages, it would have been a win. Personally, I think we've done a damn sight better than that. Mlaffs (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is rules like that that forms the pretext for conflict because of over zealous enforcement of advice.Dejvid (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Nice work Army Greg and others.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• OpposeFirst, all credit for the fact that this is a heroic attempt at compromize. My objection, however, is not to the specific wording but simply that this is too trivial to justify a specific instruction. I would feel differently if the proposers of this instruction were proposing to cut some other rule. That would demonstrate that they think this advice/instruction/rule is so important that Wikipedia cannot pass over the matter in silence.Dejvid (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of this proposal

• I like it so far. But it no-doubt needs some “double negatives” tweaked and other such stuff. How say we discuss and tweak and address some initial concerns before we vote? Greg L (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. What is "the context clearly matches the units as they are commonly understood in that context" supposed to mean?
  2. Spelling out kilometre per hour several times in the same sentence is cumbersome even if you don't say "kay-em over aitch" (but that does say Usually making clear that it's not an absolute law). -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 02:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I think I addressed those two. Greg L (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• The statute mile is not simple. An important source indicates on page 43 that within the USA the statute mile is identical to the rarely used U.S. survey mile, and nowhere else mentions the statute mile. We could say "international mile" but unfortunately the exact meaning of that term is not widely understood. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, Gerry. The difference between the statute/international mile and the survey mile is at the ppm level and the distinction is only of interest amongst professional surveyors. If the article is talking about survey-related issues, like a survey foot, then clarify and link. But as exempted here, it is simply statute miles (equal to the international mile since 1959 at precisely 5,280 feet, and precisely 0.3048 meter per foot), which is what is used in the real world in the US. Our own Mile article has it correct. There is no need to make it any more complex; 19 km (12 mi) confuses no one since no one measures the distance between cities at a precision of 2 ppm; only survey benchmarks are measured with this precision. I’m certain one would draw blank stares from the auto manufacturers if someone asked them whether they calibrate their odometers to statute/international miles or the survey mile. This is all addressed with the common-sense principle unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article as well as with the units are the ones typically used in that context. Greg L (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Get over it, Gerry. A "statute mile" is any mile of 5,280 feet. The modern definition based on the 1959 international definition of the yard makes it 1.609344 km; that is one "international statute mile" is one subset of the general term "statute mile". The one retained for use in U.S. surveying, which was the general definition of a statute mile in the United States from 1893 to 1958, is 1/0.999998 times that. The two-parts-per-million difference in particular time-sensitive or location-sensitive particular definitions of a statute mile will never matter if we are linking 36 [[statute mile|miles]] (58 [[kilometer]]s)". Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to reduce the number of words by removing truisms and repetitions (and added a few more everyday units). Hope you don't mind. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(Do you really measure people to within an eight of an inch, in America? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 12:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

• It is common to have children as they are growing stand against the edge of a door or a spot on the wall behind a door and memorialize their height as they grow. Foot-long rulers are almost always graduated to a sixteenth of an inch. But we don’t use rulers for measuring height. Height measurements are most commonly done with yardsticks, which are graduated either to an eighth of an inch or a quarter inch. If you were a child and just broke a 3–1⁄4 mark and were half way to 3–1⁄2, don’t you think you’d pipe up that you are 3–3⁄8ths? Sure you would.

  This made me think about how the tools we use can influence the precision of loosey-goosey measurements like height. I would expect that in the metric world, one centimeter is as fine as anyone is going to go; dropping down to millimeters would be absurd—you can’t even get repeatability at that level. Having a measuring tool marked at 25 mm increments would be far too coarse for height. Having one divided at 6 or 3 mm increments enables fine precision that exceeds what metric-using cultures can practically use. Surprising, isn’t it? Many Americans might make higher precision measurements because of their archaic system? But then, the same thing happens with digital household thermostats: unless someone owns a thermostat with 0.5 °C resolution, Americans are routinely making decisions on comfort points that are 5⁄9ths the size of metric ones (*sound of audience gasp and woman in the background fainting*)

  Nevertheless, I reduced the precision of the example measurement so it doesn’t attract attention to itself. Besides, the conversion lands closer to 1.79 meters. Greg L (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunno "if I were a child", but nowadays if I needed to mention my height in inches I'd just say 6 ft 2 in, given that lying down/walking for a few hours can temporarily stretch/shrink people by more than 1 cm. In metric units I always have the dilemma between 1.87 m and 1.88 m – rounding to 1.9 m would be way too coarse (and nobody does that, unless giving an eyeball estimate of someone else's height), so I end up choosing the last digit at random. I won't bother to take care to measure myself accurately enough to know whether I'm closer to 1.87 m or 1.88 m, indeed because of the temporary variations I've mentioned. And many thermostats here have 0.1 °C resolution (but I guess not 0.1 °C accuracy.) -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 21:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• That surprises me about 0.1 °C resolution; I would think those would be rather rare? When first formulating a height example several days ago in an earlier thread, I actually had the opposite reaction you metric dudes did: “Wow, these centimeters are one coarse unit: 39% of an entire inch!” I was struck by the range of US customary values that could bin into 1.79 meters. While writing that example, I even pondered for a moment whether it might be a common practice to drop down to the millimeter level. But I didn’t even Google it though, as I realized that millimeters would be absurd. Besides, my vague recollection was to have seen human height only at centimeter-level resolution and never at millimeter precision. This was just one of those areas where powers of 2—even whn in a fractional sense—works better than powers of 10. To my eye, measuring human height at a resolution of 39% of an inch is too coarse and 4% of an inch is too fine.

  Lest an SI-Nazi ;·) here jump all over me for being anti-SI, I ain’t. Quite the opposite. I’m simply seeing nothing to dissuade me from my initial impression that MOSNUM has a damn heavy representation of non-Americans who are largely unfamiliar with American practices, and where some of these non-Americans are quite content to leave our American readership in the dust because they made the “poor choice” of electing to be born in a country that uses a barbaric measuring system that ought to be deprecated from the face of this pale blue dot. Greg L (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Most digital thermostats I've seen in Italy (and many thermometers, too) have one digit after the point. (Analog ones usually just have a few ticks along with the knob, IIRC I once have seen one with just one tick each 5 °C.) As for people heights, I've seen some of them with four significant figures, but 70% of people would laugh of that, including me. (For various reasons, I've got a peculiar adversion for false precision, and I'm always very suspicious of measurements with more than three sig figs and no errors given. [2]) -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 00:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Human height: For many purposes 10 mm or 25 mm precision is enough. But a lot of modern anthropometry data about human height uses 5 mm or 1 mm precision. Such precision is important when calculating percentiles and is important to data users.

0.1 °C thermometers': Many thermometers are made for world markets and have basic components that are Fahrenheit-capable. This means that the 1 °C is not enough, it has to be at least 1 °F precision. I suspect that the designers of the Celsius version just add an extra digit 'because they can'. Lightmouse (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• You’d almost never see Americans recording their height at 1-inch increments for anything remotely important. Far too coarse. Perhaps when they recall their heights at the drivers licensing bureau when getting their license and other non-critical stuff. The ‘peak of the bell curve’—as far as typical US medical and BMI-calculating purposes go—probably lies at the divisions seen on the integral height gauge on Health-o-Meter doctors’ scales, which is 1⁄4-inch (6 mm). Greg L (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• And—You’d almost never see Americans recording their height at more than ½-inch increments for any purpose. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wow. You weigh in on a completely irrelevant, tangential issue and all you accomplished was to demonstrate that you have a profound tendency to spout nonsense on issues you know absolutely nothing about. The height gauges on American doctors’ scales (my wife owns a Health-o-Meter similar to this one she got from a health club that went digital) are marked in increments of a quarter inch, yard sticks are marked at least in quarter inch increments, and here are instructions for measuring the BMI of California school children and it calls for recording to the nearest 1⁄8 inch. Yet you make an absurd statement like You’d almost never see Americans recording their height at more than ½-inch increments for any purpose. “Any purpose,” huh? You could have stuck to issues like “instruction creep” or “it’s over-prescriptive” or something pertaining directly to the issue at hand. It might have made it appear (kinda sorta) that you have a legitimate view. Instead you demonstrate that you have foot-in-mouth disease.

  Just because you are highly impassioned about the virtues of the SI, you really should begin to realize how it is futile to oppose Wikipedia’s accommodating our American readership (and doing so without unnecessarily linking the crap out of stuff that is obvious). Greg L (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is certainly not "a completely irrelevant, tangential issue" when you propose adding a totally improper rule by example to the style manual. Especially when you refuse to simply admit that it was a bad idea conceived in haste, and move on from there.
• Consider basketball—a sport in which the height of the players is one of their defining characteristics. It is often the first thing people want to know about a player. But look, for example, at the [roster of the Chicago Bulls]; not a single player listed to even half-inch precision, let alone the quarter-inch you wrongly claim to be common (which is more precise than typical variations in any individual in the course of a single day), let alone the eight-inch you proposed for our rules. The Bulls are listed in whole-inch increments, despite your (GregL) claim above that this is "Far too coarse."
• Re Lightmouse's comment "Many thermometers are made for world markets and have basic components that are Fahrenheit-capable. This means that the 1 °C is not enough, it has to be at least 1 °F precision." I'd suggest that Lightmouse actually take a look at the zillions of digital thermometers out there. All of them I have seen use for home use in measuring inside or outside air temperature have 0.1 °C precision, not 0.1 °F (and as pointed out above, not 0.1 °C accuracy, either). Sure, you can set them to display temperatures in tenths of a degree Fahrenheit. But they don't do so in tenth of a degree Fahrenheit precision—the degrees Fahrenheit jump up or down in 0.2 °F increments most of the time, and 0.1 °F occasionally. They might read "5.0 °F" or "5.2 °F", but they will never read "5.1 °F", for example. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Gene. You are being silly and stubborn and illogical. The issue isn’t whether some Americans are recording (more precisely: “declaring”) heights at one-inch increments; it is whether—as you stated: You’d almost never see Americans recording their height at more than ½-inch increments for *any* purpose. I’ve already shown and linked the fact that the recommended practice for California school children is to record in 1⁄8 increments. So in answer to Army’s question, above (Do you really measure people to within an eight of an inch, in America?): yes.

Further, with regard to your idiotic ‘half-inch is the limit in America’ assertion, I just called my local HMO (Rockwood Clinic in Spokane WA—you can call them yourself if you like) and their standard practice is to record to the nearest quarter inch (6.35 mm). I have no doubt whatsoever that this is the standard practice observed by the vast majority of American medical practitioners—perhaps all of them. This is entirely in keeping with my above post, which was The ‘peak of the bell curve’—as far as typical US medical and BMI-calculating purposes go—probably lies at the divisions seen on the integral height gauge on Health-o-Meter doctors’ scales, which is 1⁄4-inch (6 mm). Accordingly, Gene, your assertion is demonstrably and clearly false.

Once again, your rabid promotion of the SI to the detriment of our (significant) US readership underlies why your arguments here often either evade the central issues or rely upon false declarations such as making statements of fact regarding American practices about which you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground. Seriously, you come across as too-weird-to-handle because you can’t accept that American doctors and their barbaric measurement system is such that they record heights at a precision that is 57% finer than is typically done with metric. (*sound of audience gasp*)

You should stop digging the hole deeper for yourself (but I really hope you do). A nurse from another HMO is supposed to be returning my call. If you would like to engage in yet another demonstration of “Gene hoof-in-mouth” for our viewing pleasure here, there is ample room below for such, and then I will be pleased to show that yet another American medical facility has a standard practice to record heights at a resolution finer than at which Europeans typically do. Now, please weigh in with more Geneisms; it will be very amusing for us regulars here on WT:MOSNUM Greg L (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Had I known that by asking that I was opening such a can of worms, I would have shut up. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 13:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say 0.1 °F. I said "1 °C is not enough, it has to be at least 1 °F". Your example of "0.2 °F" is consistent with that. I have seen two mode thermometers where the °C mode has one decimal digit and the °F mode has no decimals (some cars do this). Lightmouse (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that; some of the discussion was about 0.1 °C precision, and I failed to note that your point was about whole number precision. Whole degrees Celsius are good enough for many purposes, as are nearest 5 or nearest 10 degrees, whether Celsius for Fahrenheit. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite follow-up. Yes, I was making a point about 'whole number precision'. Lightmouse (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just more bad rules by example; but that's the least of the problems here. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually meant that I was surprised, not that I didn't believe that: I thought Greg knew how people were measured in the US, and I didn't think he had any reason to lie about that. BTW, what are the other problems? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think point 3) above ("the units are the ones typically used in that context") should always apply, not only when we don't link units (and hence removed as obvious). We don't want to state "It's OK to measure screen diagonals in attoparsecs or bulk moduli in british thermal units per imperial quart, so long as we link those units." -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• The point is to help editors when their minds slosh with “but, but, here’s an exception to the rule as to why you can’t do that”—something like “the King of Siam used a 4,980-foot-long mile in 1885 so ‘mile’ is ambiguous” (when some poor bastard tries to use common sense). It would be nice if editors don’t continually come here asking us to settle some dispute over such-‘n’-such on some backwater article somewhere. Uber-common sense stuff isn’t required in the A.P. manual of style; this isn’t the A.P. and not all Wikipedian’s have journalism degrees. Anything that drives home an important concept (and does so in only a few words) can only do good. Greg L (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Shortened segment

The exemptions are using too many words. We might shorten without loss of meaning to:

Exemptions

To avoid overlinking, the first occurrence of very common units should generally not be linked:

• There is no need to link units that are familiar to all English-speaking peoples, like:

• Time: second, minute, hour, day, week, month, and year (but link millisecond and microsecond)
• Angle: degree (but link radians)

• There is no need to link US customary or SI units that are familiar to either US or International readers when they are accompanied by a conversion:

• Length: meter (or metre), millimeter, centimeter, kilometer; inch, foot, yard, (statute) mile
• Mass/weight: gram (or gramme), milligram, kilogram, metric ton (or tonne); (avoirdupois) ounce, (avoirdupois) pound
• Speed or velocity: kilometer per hour; mile per hour; (but link feet per second or kilometers per second)
• Volume: liter (or litre), milliliter, centiliter; (U.S. fluid) ounce, (U.S. fluid) quart, (U.S. fluid) gallon; (but link cubic meter, cubic feet, cubic inch, U.S. dry measures)
• Temperature: degree Celsius; degree Fahrenheit; (but link kelvin)

−Woodstone (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The idea is correct, but the tonne, the litre, the hour aren't SI units, they are "units accepted for use with the SI". And we need to emphasize the "each-other-ness" of the conversion requirement, to avoid giving the idea that no link is needed in 0.5 kilograms (500 g). (And who the hell is an "International reader"?) And "very common" and "familiar" is not enough (the atomic mass unit is very common in chemistry and is familiar to whoever studied some chemistry in high school or junior high school, but we don't want to suggest avoiding linking it) – "in widespread everyday use" would be better. So it'd be:

Exemptions

To avoid overlinking, the first occurrence of very common units should generally not be linked:

• There is no need to link units that are in widespread everyday use among the general English-speaking population, like:

• Time: second, minute, hour, day, week, month, and year (but link millisecond and microsecond)
• Angle: degree (but link radians)

• There is no need to link a SI unit (or a unit accepted for use with the SI) which in widespread everyday use among the general population of metric countries if it is accompanied by a conversion to a customary unit in widespread everyday use in the U.S., and viceversa. Such units include:

• Length: meter (or metre), millimeter, centimeter, kilometer; inch, foot, yard, (statute) mile
• Mass/weight: gram (or gramme), milligram, kilogram, metric ton (or tonne); (avoirdupois) ounce, (avoirdupois) pound
• Speed or velocity: kilometer per hour; mile per hour; (but link feet per second or kilometers per second)
• Volume: liter (or litre), milliliter, centiliter; (U.S. fluid) ounce, (U.S. fluid) quart, (U.S. fluid) gallon; (but link cubic meter, cubic feet, cubic inch, U.S. dry measures)
• Temperature: degree Celsius; degree Fahrenheit; (but link kelvin)

(or some tweak thereof.) -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is still overkill and instructional creep anyway you look at it. Less is better. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 15:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is bass-ackwards, too. The obscure, ambiguous units such as "ounces" and "gallons" and "quarts" are almost always more in need of linking that cubes of units of length are. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Or, did I overlook some double or triple negatives? Was this intended to be the other way around? Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• MJC. I find that the term “instruction creep” is a pseudonym for “I don’t do it that way and oppose a guideline that would embolden editors to revise the way I’ve done things.” Perhaps the more up-front approach would be to explain precisely what it is about your practices that is such a good idea and how the above proposed guideline would interfere with that practice.

  Army. Go ahead and tweak the thing to your heart’s desire. Greg L (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Precisely, or to put it another way: "Some creep has made up some instruction he would like everyone else to follow, whether they agree with it or not." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've trimmed down the footnote (and added "the prose of" for cases such as Electron where the article begins with an infobox containing many measurements). -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 00:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The usefulness of linking millisecond and the such will be strongly dependent on what becomes of that title. On the discussion I've started to sort out the messy inconsistence of such stubs/redirects, consensus is emerging that such a title should redirect to second, in which case a link to micrometre won't be very helpful unless the reader bothers to scroll the article to the "multiples section". [I was starting the example as a link to millisecond won't be very helpful to your wife unless, but I decided to check and second happens to mention submultiples in the lead.] I have resolved this problem with 938 million electron volts (MeV) a few times, but this only works with M and k which are also commonly used to informally abbreviate "million" and "thousand", and would be quite awkward with any other prefix. Anyone has any idea on how to handle this problem? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 21:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your separate proposal about existence and naming of articles: Any such change should be done to make those links more useful, not less useful. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Greg, the way that I edit doesn't normally include the linking of common units. If a proposal make sense, I'll support it. You know that I supported you in the "follow the lit" days and Gene knows that I rarely agree with him; hell or even pay attention to him, but this does seem to be an area of agreement because this is overkill. What are we trying to do? We are just trying to avoid a few blue links. It seems like we'd be supplying arming instructions for an MX missile to kill a rat in the trash. Link first occurrence or say nothing at all and leave it to the editors and their common sense. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 20:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• MJC, when you write “[your editing practice] doesn't normally include the linking of common units”, I assume that means you don’t link the first-time occurrence of meters or kilograms when they are not accompanied by a conversion; is that right? Greg L (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Rarely are they not accompanied by a conversion. I agree that multiple links are not good, but is avoiding 5 ft (152 cm) worth a mountain of instruction to avoid. Does once really hurt? I don't believe so. Sorry, but I'm not sold. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 21:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Does once really hurt?" is a 'thin end of the wedge' argument. If once doesn't, then "Does twice really hurt?", and so on. How many times does it take? I'd rather take the good advice of WP:Overlink and not have any unnecessary links. Ask the question, "Who needs either of the two links in 'His dog was 5 ft (152 cm) long'?" Anyone familiar with feet understands how long his dog was - as does anyone familiar with centimetres; who's left? and so where is the necessity for the links? --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Following them backwards can help us find you people who use improper precision in your conversions, and tweak your choice of units. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a good point Gene. Maybe we need a second-class of "invisible" links for tracking purposes, to keep track of what's related to what without pissing off the plain-text aficionados (we do have hidden categories after all). This would at least make it once again possible to compile a list of things that happened on a specific year/month/day even when no more articles visibly link to it (aside from other date pages). — CharlotteWebb 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the claim of istruction creep, I agree that it's evil and ideally I'd just say "use common sense". But there are many idiots who don't have a common sense and many more trolls who aren't willing to use theirs. But have you taken a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)&oldid=261478985#Units_of_measurement? It's five screenfuls on my display, which include many absurdities, such as the mandatory use of a middot to multiply units (SI allows both it and the hard space, with the latter being much more common in practice, and some non-SI units are simply justaposed as in mAh and kWh), mandatory slash to divide (it is the correct and most common usage for SI units, but I don't thing mph should be forbidden, which (I think) is much more common than mi/h), forbidden repetition of units in ranges 5.9 kg – 6.3 kg (which is the only reasonable thing to do if boundaries of the range are of different orders of magnitude as in 700 nm – 1 mm), Use kn to abbreviate knot rather than kt (could be confused with kilotonne) or KN (could be confused with kilonewton) (pretending I didn't notice the capitalization of the K in KN, a sentence where you can't understand if we're talking of a speed, a mass or a force would need to be reworded anyway, and any editor could just go to knot (speed) to learn its symbols, no need to mention it on MOS:NUM), and then I got tired of looking for examples. That is instruction creep. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 00:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Should the volt be included? After all, I think pretty much everybody knows the AA cells in the remote control of their TV set are 1.5 volts each, and that mains voltage is about 220 V (or about 110 V, depending on their country). -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 03:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting. I think you are right about it being widely understood; it certainly passes the “wife” test. But is it encountered sufficiently often on Wikipedia (like days and hours and meters and kilograms) to warrant messing with it and dipping into the “electricty” world? If you think this concern is unwarranted, please add it. Greg L (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  P.S. Even though it is a valid observation, I think others might look at our lead example, where one is supposed to link the ampere, and might be puzzled (and question the advisability our having the same right as anyone else to procreate) if we then say that the volt should generally be exempt from linking. Greg L (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course volts are common. There shouldn't be any question whatsoever about that.

The problems here include:

• A strange, unwarranted assumption that we should be able to look at anything, any unit of measure, any symbol for a unit of measure, whatever, in an abstract out-of-context sense and say that it should not be linked.
  • Or the corollary that it would be desirable for the manual of style to do so beforehand for any single unit of measure.
• An equally stange notion that "commonness" means something should not be linked.
  • "France" or the "United States" or "Chicago" or "Tokyo" certainly are "common" terms, understood by most people around the world. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a least some of the zillions of links to them.
  • The "watt" is also a very common unit of measurement. Yet many people, certainly in the United States and in many other places as well, are going to be left scratching their heads when they read that some one-cylinder gasoline engine is "3,000 watts" or "3 kW" and the like--especially when these are just used as adjectives describing the engine without identifying the quantity being measured, so they might just be some manufacturers branding quirks.

Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

To Greg: If the point is to "dip in the world of electricity", Its tension is 220 volts. usually makes more sense than Its tension is 220 volts., but anyway your point is valid, so I won't add it to the list. To Gene: I've recently made an edit to WP:OVERLINK to address your concern, but I still think that linking countries for linking's sake as in It was developed by Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler and Italian mathematician Joseph Louis Lagrange in the 1750s. is quite pointless (their nationality is not too relevant to the Euler–Lagrange equation itself and to its significance, and any reader who wants to go from there to Italy can reasonably (and correctly) guess that the first sentence of Joseph Louis Lagrange contains a link to it, so they would go to Joseph Louis Lagrange and from there to Italy. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 13:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's another — in the exemptions section for units of length that aren't common and ought to be linked, should we include leagues? Mlaffs (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• My sense is that fathoms gets the concept across sufficiently well that leagues and Smoots ought to be linked. Greg L (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

General discussion

• None of the above. The biggest problem is instruction creep, and the unwarranted notion that everything should be determinable from looking at our Style guidelines. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If there is no guidance at all in this situation, how do we prevent inevitable conflict? With pre-existing guidelines to point to, it provides consistant guidance in resolving disputes before they become acrimonious. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not advocating no guidance at all. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Since none of these solutions seem to solve the problem, what guidance do you think should be provided for people trying to decide when to, and when not to, link units in an article? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
        • These proposals fail to distinguish between common units (i.e. basic units of length, weight and volume) and the lesser-known, technical units. Common units (such as inches, millimeters, liters) should almost never be linked, while technical and uncommon units (such as Gross Register Tonnage) should probably be linked a couple times in the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I have added a 5th proposal based on your suggestion. Indeed, anyone can add new proposals should these be inadequate. Remember, this is not a vote, but a discussion and if anyone has a reasonable solution, PLEASE ADD IT ABOVE. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary matters

The #Relevent policy/guideline pages section above says "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it."

Before we ever had any voting on the choices, that section should have been filled in, and the wording of the choices to vote on should have been hashed out. There's nothing worse than changing the options in the middle of a vote--so what those options really are should be clearly established before there is any voting whatsoever. Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gene that a more thorough examination of the possibilities need be made before any vote is initiated. I would not be happy with any of the above proposals as they seem based on what I could only describe as an oversimplification of the issue at hand. I'd like to see a proposal which takes into account the following factors.

• whether the unit can be considered common for the given context
• whether the unit has any particular relevance to the article/section
• whether the a link is being repeated from the introduction, a part of the same section or a completely different section

JIMp _talk·cont 00:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The problem is that there is different wording on at least 3 different guidelines. We can agree on the principle and change any relevent policies later. I linked the 3 I could find that directly addressed this issue. If you know of any more, feel free to add them; but the priniciple still needs to be addressed so all guidelines can be updated correctly. It is entirely possible these are the only three pages that are affected however, with some 500 or so policy and/or guideline pages it is unreasonable to hold up the important discussion until all 500 have been checked for possibly refering to this idea... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Jimp is talking a lot of sense here: the devil is in the detail. To start with, I want to know the reasons that pro-link editors believe readers would click on a link to metre or stone. Can we have examples that relate to the information provided at those linked articles? Tony (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is a big difference between a term like "meter", which everyone in the English speaking world is likely to know what it is, and more esoteric units like Henry (unit) or Newton (unit) or Rod (unit) or the like. Most people (even us poorly educated and backwards Americans) can roughly hold their hands apart and say "a meter is this big". However, not many people know what a Henry or a Newton or a Rod is. I have added 2 more proposals that hopefully will help address some of these concerns. Please feel free to add any more should the 6 above still fall short. The purpose of this is to get many people proposing and discussing thing so that we can decide how to handle this situation... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just like English is pretty much spoken by all Europeans under 30 years of age, Europeans can’t assume that everyone knows English; there are plenty of older Europeans who know enough English to interpret an ad for American-labeled cigarettes and that’s about it. Similarly, it is a fallacy to assume that older Americans are generally familiar with kilogram or meter or any of these other units of measure that you assume are universally understood. They are not. Just link the first occurrence; it’s not hard for us to do and. Besides, as it only turns a word or two blue; it has zero footprint.

  BTW, when traveling in Austria, I was struck by a poster in Vienna for an American-label cigarette. Vienna is, after all, a city that was bombed by the allies during WWII. Yet the ad showed some big bastards riding some Harleys through the American southwest with a P‑51 Mustang flying right over their heads. Two icons of American power to pitch cigarettes. I found it interesting. Greg L (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Two matters, then. It's only in scientific articles where there's consensus not to use US units (that's the rule) that US readers are not provided with a US equivalent. Do readers need to know what a kilogram is where a conversion is supplied on the spot? I'd hazard a guess that the very people you'd be aiming the link at would have zero interest in the Unit article (and wouldn't even suspect they'd encounter Greg's stunning computer generation of the IPK at Kilogram. There, they'd be faced with the opening fact that a kilogram "is almost exactly equal to the mass of one liter of water". Hmmm. Go read it and you'll see that it's pitched to a completely different kind of reader—ironically, one who wouldn't be consulting the link to kg in an article.

This brings me to the wider issue of why WP doesn't have an article tailor-made for older US readers who don't know what a kilogram or kilometre is, and young readers outside the US who don't know what a mile is. I proposed the creation of a centralised article that includes ways of visualising weights and measures of both kinds. This would be the ideal link first-off in an article, at least for the standard units. When it comes to the odd-ball ones, sure, they probably need to be linked ... rods per square newton? Tony (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think that is an outstandingly interesting idea that should be given serious consideration. Perhaps, the centralized article would have “double-equal” section headings that are titled with simply the name of the unit of measure. Each section would begin with the italicized {main} to the actual article. As Tony proposes, each entry would be exceedingly short and simple and would assume that the reader looking at “Kilogram” understood U.S. pounds and needs only plain-speak to relate it to what they are familiar with. Similarly, a reader of “Pound (mass) would be assumed to fully understand what a kilogram is.

  Having said all that, I note that the lead paragraph of Kilogram pretty much does that much already. Wikipedia is known for its pithy lead paragraphs. Don’t the majority of our articles on units of measures address the basic “ah HAA” of the nature of the measure and its general magnitude in their first paragraph?

  Finally Tony, I realize that you have exposed a logic fart on my part. Indeed, if we provide parenthetical conversions for familiar measures (not the units of measure, such as kilogram or carats, but the measure, such as mass), then there should really be no need for a linked conversion. Older Americans very often will not understand that kilogram is a unit of mass nor have a flying clue as to its magnitude, but accompanying conversions—like “(80 lb)” which is the weight of a sack of concrete—clearly solves that dilemma by instantly and intuitively providing the ah Haa for both the measure and magnitude. So I am inclined to take back what I said above. So…

  Perhaps the guideline should be that units of measure for common measures (mass, length, temperature) need not be linked wherever accompanying conversions are provided. In scientific articles, where no conversions are provided, the first occurrence of all units of measure should be linked. For less common measures such as light intensity, viscosity, etc.) we always link the first occurrence regardless of whether it is accompanied by a conversion or not. Does that seem more logical? And isn’t it extremely close to what MOSNUM already says?? If it seems sensible and it is not exactly what we already have on MOSNUM, then we can work on grey areas like “pressure” later. Pressure too is a common measure but only if the units of measure are the psi for Americans and kilopascal (I assume) for the rest of the world. Exotic, engineering-style pressures and stresses like ksi (thousands of psi) ought to be linked. Greg L (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

  

  A one-litre bottle of cognac

For example, this pic, or one in a better size-context, might appear as an illustration of "litre". I can imagine a mile/km marked off in relation to the NY skyline, and an acre and a hectare marked as a square in an aerial shot of a well-known city centre. This is what would assist the reader much more directly via a link to the "Volume" or "Area" section of the "Weights and measures in everyday terms" article. People need to visualise. I want pics of, say, a thousand-gallon drum, of a line marked on a map from LA to wherever marking off a thousand kilometres, and another showing a thousand miles. That kind of thing. Tony (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine anybody having a whole lot of difficulty visualizing a one-liter or two-liter bottle. We don't need a picture for that. Sure, there are things for which a picture might be helpful; this is just a particularly bad example. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyone who doesn't already know what a litre is or how much a litre represents would have a great deal of difficulty visualizing a one-litre or two-litre bottle, which is kind of the point of the exercise. Mlaffs (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but the question is, where is the world are you going to find these people capable of reading Wikipedia who do not know what a one-liter or two-liter bottle is?

However, this is thread drift totally unrelated to the linking issues at hand here. Let Tony1 and GregL go somewhere else and dream up things like this, without cluttering up an already overbloated discussion. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Gene, I don't mean this as an insult in any way, but I honestly can't tell if you're just being provocative or if you actually believe what you're saying. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that I could walk out into the main business district of any major U.S. city and within five minutes find more than one person who is computer-literate, educated (at least high school graduate, and probably university), and doesn't have a clue how much a litre is, or a kilometre, or a kilogram. I know for sure that I could step out of my condo here in Toronto onto the main street of the city and find someone matching those characteristics who, while they're certainly familiar with the terms, doesn't know how much a gallon or a mile is. Heck, we probably wouldn't even need to go too deep into the community of people who regularly edit Wikipedia to test this, let alone the people who read the site.

• Simple plain-speak that I agree with. Americans don’t use metric. Even though two-liter bottles of pop are a common package size, if your measuring cups aren’t metric, and your bathroom and kitchen scales aren’t, and your tape measures and yard sticks aren’t, then Americans—particularly older ones—don’t automatically know what measure liter, meter, and kilogram are let alone their magnitude. This is especially true if they land on an article that spells them litre and metre—this puts the units entirely out of all experience. Greg L (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I think this discussion actually is relevant. What's common to you or me isn't necessarily common to my next-door neighbour, the person down the street, the guy across the border, or User:Manonthestreet. That's why, although they might not strictly be necessary, it's not harmful to link to link to some of these terms at least once. Mlaffs (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. Even though I have a Master's degree and am an active Wikipedia contributor, I only have a very vague idea of what a yard is, and if when I encounter such units I am always click on the wikilink and do the math. Nicolas1981 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Mlaffs and Nicolas1981: We’re talking only about not linking when there is a conversion. To help accommodate editors like Tony who really hates blue links, can we agree that no one is confused by U.S. Air Force pilots may be no taller than 6 foot–7 inches (2.00 m)? Because length is a common measure and one of the units is familiar and the context is clear, no one is confused. There is no point desensitizing readers with yet-more-blue on such every-day stuff. We need to find a middle ground between those who would link everything and those who hate links. Greg L (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Greg, that post was centuries old in Wiki talk page years ;>). I was actually responding to Gene's dismissing the logic of Tony's one litre bottle image, back when the current topic of discussion was the idea of a general article about units of measure, what unit in imperial equals how much in metric and vice versa, etc. I'm pretty much good with where we seem to be getting now. I'd agree that nobody should be confused by the conversion sentence you've shown just above, except for that rare user who reads the m and thinks it means miles instead of metres, and I'm not too interested in helping that reader. A link to either inches or metres in that instance ought to be unnecessary and I certainly wouldn't add one. However, if I came across that linked in an article, would I remove it? Probably not — I don't think that link would be the end of Wikipedia. I'd be even less likely to remove it if, rather than linking directly to either the inch article or the metre article, it linked to Tony's comparison of units of measure article. That's one of the reasons I personally prefer suggestive language — need not — rather than prescriptive — should not. However, as I've said, if consensus lands on should not, I'll line up to defend it when necessary. Mlaffs (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• With the latest tweaks, Proposal 11 seems to be quite suggestive (v.s. prescriptive). Are you inclined to vote on it? Greg L (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, my back's a little sore since the holidays, so I'm actually more reclined than inclined right now. But, yes, I've added my !vote above. To those who did the heavy lifting, nice work. Mlaffs (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Do unconverted common temperature units really need a link? Who here believes somebody will actually click on them? Lightmouse (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Most Europeans won't have a clue of how warm a foo is if we state that the temperature of a foo is 69 °F, and, while the best solution to this would be writing 69 °F (21 °C), in cases where this would be inappropriate, linking degree Fahrenheit would give those readers a way to figure it out. And vice versa for degrees Celsius and American readers. (Yes, these cases should be very rare IMO, but there actually were many people arguing that it was inappropriate to add conversions to degrees Fahrenheit in Mercury (planet).) -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you believe that people will click on the link just because it is there? Lightmouse (talk)

Army, it's funny that you should mention Mercury. Just yesterday, I commented at this FLC about the lack of conversions to standard units. Apparently, it is the standard to not provide conversions in astronomy articles. I don't disagree with them, just thought it worth noting. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not "just because it is there", but "in order to be able to figure out how much 69 °F is". -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 13:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

• Tony, I also love the idea of the basic comparison article that you've suggested, and completely agree that it would be the ideal link in first usage.
• As much as we're talking about older Americans not understanding kilogram, kilometre, or litre, I'd say it's a fair bet that the vast number of younger Americans wouldn't have clue one what they are either. That's certainly been my experience. Equally, the vast majority of younger Canadians (for example) will have heard of mile, gallon, and pound, but will have absolutely no frame of reference as to how much one of those represents. Myself, because I grew up in Canada during the metric conversion, I can pretty quickly turn kilometres into miles (and vice versa) or grams into pounds (and vice versa) in my head. I agree with Greg that we have to be careful in describing something as a "common" unit of measure — common is very much age, country, and education specific.
• All that being said, I'd completely support the idea that the first occurrence for common measures need not be linked if a conversion is provided. Similarly, I'd also completely support the idea that less common measures, or where no conversion if provided, ought to be linked in the first instance. However, if we were to eventually settle on that as a concept, the wording is important. "Need not be linked" is a very different concept from either "should not be linked" or "must not be linked". While we don't need it to be linked, I don't believe that it does any harm if it is linked, and "need not be linked" should never be an acceptable reason to undertake a mass removal of such links, without regard for context.

I express this last thought because, although I desperately don't want this to be a discussion about a particular series of edits, this RFC began because of exactly that situation — a particular editor interpreting WP:OVERLINK and the wording "It is generally not necessary to link …" as suitable rationale to undertake a mass, automated removal of links, without regard to context. To be clear, in that situation, I don't have an opinion either way about whether or not terms should be linked in specific cases. However, to my mind, "generally not necessary to link" is not the same as "should never be linked".

Again, I really don't want this to be a discussion about a particular series of edits. I mention this only to provide an example of how important it is for us to get the wording right; for it to be as unambiguous as possible, and completely consistent across the multiple relevant policy pages. Mlaffs (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

More preliminary matters: Since this was improperly framed as a vote ab initio, the new options added after the voting started don't really belong there either.

Here are some of the existing rules, which were not included above:

Under WP:MOSNUM#Which units to use

• Since some disciplines use units not approved by the BIPM, or may format them in a way that differs from BIPM-prescribed format, when such units are used by a clear majority of the sources relevant to those disciplines, articles should follow this (e.g., using cc in automotive articles and not cm³). Such use of non-standard units are always linked on first use.

Under WP:MOSNUM#Unit conversions

• Articles on scientific topics where there is consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units, in which case the first occurrence of each unit should be linked.
• ...
• In topics such as the history of maritime law in which imperial units (e.g. miles and nautical miles) are part of the subject, it can be excessive to provide SI conversions at each instance a unit occurs. In such cases, it is best to explicitly mention that this topic will use these units without providing conversion at each instance in the lead or in the introduction, in which case the first occurrence of each unit should be linked.

Under WP:MOSNUM#Disambiguation

• Avoid the use of unit abbreviations that have conflicting meanings in common units systems such as SI and US customary units:
• ...

• Link such units to their definitions on first use.

• ...

• Use long ton or short ton rather than just ton; these units have no symbol or abbreviation and are always spelled out. The metric unit equal to 1000 kilograms is the tonne and is officially known as the metric ton in the US. Whichever name for the metric unit is used, the symbol is "t".
• Use troy or avoirdupois ounce rather than just ounce in articles concerning precious metals, black powder, and gemstones.
• Use fluid ounce explicitly to avoid confusion with weight, and specify, if appropriate, Imperial, US or other.
• Use US or imperial gallon rather than just gallon (and the same logic applies for quarts, pints, and fluid ounces).
• A calorie (symbol cal) refers to a gram calorie while the kilocalorie (symbol kcal) refers to the kilogram calorie (also known as small calorie and large calorie respectively). When used in a nutrition related article, use kilogram unit as the primary unit. For articles with a largely American readership, use dietary calorie(s) with a one-time link to kilogram calorie.

• For bits and bytes, specify whether the binary or decimal meaning of the prefixes kilo (k, K), mega (M), giga (G) and tera (T) is intended. See Quantities of bytes and bits.

• ...

• In tables, infoboxes, or within brackets, use a tilde (~) or use approx. (e.g, write The capacity of a ship is sometimes expressed in gross register tons, a unit of volume defined as 100 cubic feet (~2.83 m³)).

Under WP:OVERLINK#What generally should not be linked

• ... A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own.)

<end of quoted rules>
. So there is a whole lot more to the existing rules than what we were told about in the beginning of this discussion--a whole lot more that should have been the first item in the agenda of this discussion, without any solutions ever offered before the existing rules were laid out on the table.

NOTE further: MOSNUM has no credibility whatsoever as long as it continues to insist on violating the standard rules, and our own longstanding (many years long) house rules, that the symbols for units of measure are never italicized. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Gene, when you resort to overblown hyperbole, such as “MOSNUM has no credibility whatsoever”, in an effort to buttress your position, the only credibility that suffers is your own. It would serve you well to realize that even though your proposal may at times make perfect, logical sense by any outside objective measure, your positions may lack the subtleties or convenience necessary for other editors here to feel comfortable with them. Given that this is a collaborative writing environment, you should make more of an effort to read other editors’ posts and understand their positions. Greg L (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Tossing out a possible technical solution

Unfortunately, my CSS/JS skills are not great, but I'm wondering how much of the various issues can be dealt with by first wrapping all unit displays in CSS tags (likely distinguished further by their base units such as a CSS class "unit-velocity", "unit-pressure", etc.) and then using whatever tools to allow users to show dates in the format they want, add unit links, and the like. Yes, I know this is suspiciously like date linking above, which is why I'm only throwing it out both as a technical matter and a practical matter to see if it's a possible resolve. Even if done this way, there needs to be a default basic display for unregistered users that is consistent across a page and all pages. --MASEM 16:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Even more preliminary matters

That this is framed as a vote is more evident in that we were only given the option of "Support of this proposal" without an accompanying "Objections to this proposal", and with the discussion sections normally used to amplify a short statement of support.

No instructions are given on voting your support for more than one proposal, nor any instructions on voting your opposition to any proposal.

Yet new options are being added in a haphazard manner after the voting has started.

In other words, the whole structure and framework is not conducive to the discussion.

Jayron32 also said above that it would be taken to RfC within one hour. An RfC should not start with a vote. I don't yet see anything about it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies (nor, for that matter, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues), so I don't know how he intended to frame the issues there. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why?

This whole discussion originated from the inconsistencies between various guidelines. This could be solved by simply not having the same point repeated in fifteen different MoS pages. For example, since October there has been a tag on WP:OVERLINK and on MOS:LINK suggesting to merge them, which apparently everybody ignored. If they were merged, there would be no need to repeat the #Dates and #Units section on the current MOS:LINK, as they would already be discussed in #Overlinking_and_overlinking when WP:OVERLINK is merged there. Eliminating the redundancy, and the possibility of inconsistencies. The "including common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided).^[2]" would be moved to the last point of the list and changed to "... and common units of measurement for which a conversion is provided (see MOS:NUM for details)." And then in MOS:NUM we could incorporate Greg L's proposal or some tweak thereof.

In other words, discuss each point in one place. We can use links between guidelines for details. What do you think?-- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How's this? If/when Greg L's proposal is accepted, the provided). ^[2] will be replaced with provided; see MOS:NUM for details). -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 15:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that WP:OVERLINK and on MOS:LINK should be merged. But I will object if somebody arbitarily assumes that we have agreed on one proposal over another. Lightmouse (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't. In fact, on a later edit on that page I added a link to this RfC. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that. I find the discussion too much to analyse. Lightmouse (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I support getting WP:OVERLINK and MOS:LINK merged, and including a reference to the merged guideline within the units of measure section of this guideline. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Leading zeros in geographical coordinates

Are leading zeros used in geographical coordinates? I.e. should I write 9°8′7″N 4°5′6″E or 09°08′07″N 004°05′06″E? (Personally I prefer the latter, but I will follow the policy, of course.) --Apalsola ^{t • c} 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've only seen this done for minutes and seconds of time, never angle. Ideally the coords template should be programmed to strip or add zeros depending on consensus. Other templates do this, e.g. [3]. — CharlotteWebb 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't necessarily have to be consensus. If there is not, the coord template should act just as it does, leaving the choice to the editor using the template. Gene Nygaard (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Indiscriminate automated removal of year links

It came to my attention that [[::User:Lightbot|Lightbot]] ([[::User talk:Lightbot|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Lightbot|contribs]]) has been removing links to year articles. I read through the relevant section of the recent RfC; there isn't anything even approaching a general consensus that such a blanket removal is appropriate. Until such time as that is the case, robots should not be used to indiscriminately remove all year links, and I would ask Lightmouse to disable this feature. (I raised this issue on ver talk page originally but ve seems unwilling to do so, so I am bringing the issue here.)

Before someone misrepresents my opinion, let me point out that I am quite aware of what overlinking is and I am not advocating the indiscriminate keeping of all year links. That would be ridiculous. The issue here is that unless someone manages to invent strong AI, no robot they program will ever be able to do what is a human editor's job - reading article text and making determinations as to the appropriateness of links in their surrounding context. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 10:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Earle Martin is complaining about this edit, in which the link to year of foundation of the Latymer Upper School was founded, was removed. It appears Earle accepts that removal of overlinking is desirable, yet paradoxically refuses to give up the linking to this particular year and in this particular article, claiming this furthers the understanding to the subject. I cannot quite fathom what sort of 'human discretion' Earle is after. Perhaps he is after some sort of "discretionary 1 year-link per article" dispensation, even though there appears to be a strong consensus for "very limited linking only" to year articles; and the RfC to obtain dispensation for linking dates of birth and death failed due to the lack of interest - it just died and wasn't even closed properly? I say let the bots get on with removing these links, because doing it manually or semi-automatically is extremely boring and is a pain in the arse. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There certainly does seem to be a consensus for limited linking only. Unfortunately it's impossible to do such limited linking because as soon as you do Lightbot or someone/thing else will come along and remove it. I am requesting that until an iron-hard consensus that all year links must be removed on sight is demonstrated and codified in policy, that robotic activity along these lines should be suspended.

If removing date links "manually or semi-automatically is extremely boring and is a pain in the arse", then that is probably a sign that you should move on to other, more important tasks instead, and let other people deal with overlinking on a case-by-case basis. It's really not a priority task here. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 14:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• • There is a more detailed discussion on the matter at Talk:Latymer Upper School#Removal of introductory year link by automated or semi-automated means. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Earle, why don't you just quit forum shopping. I'm sure you have other, more important tasks to do as well. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your allegation that I am "forum shopping". If the owner of a bot is not being forthcoming, then how is the talk page for the specific policy related to the issue not the correct place to raise the issue? I request that you take that back. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "not being forthcoming" ? Lightmouse (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is well-established that the community does not want year links unless, on rare instances, they somehow increase the understanding of the reader of the topic, significantly. Please demonstrate just how that year-link you seem to be insisting on in the article above does this? It looks to me like a nuisance link. Tony (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As usual, Tony has misinterpreted the consensus here. (The word "significantly" does not appear in any form of the consensus, other than your discussion pages.) The consensus on the detailed RfC (not yours) is that year links are sometimes appropriate, and year of founding of an organization has been given as a possible example. I don't see a consensus that the year of founding should be linked, nor that it should not be linked. Hence, the bot is wrong, although an honest semi-automated edit process might very well lead to the removal of that link. (I'm trying to assume good faith, although some editors had been using semi-automated tools at a rate which makes it unlikely that any thought had gone into it.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Any unbiased editor, upon examination of the two RfCs, will conclude that Rubin's "sometimes appropriate" is not accurate, and that "link only very rarely (and only with good reason)" would be a more accurate summary.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As I predicted in November, "If a hypothetical editor decides that ... the RfC below is 'no consensus' on ... 'When to link Year articles' (ignoring the fact that most commentators supporting 'sometimes' actually said 'very rarely'), then I guess we're right back where we started. It's a pity the committee didn't ask the question, 'Should date links be treated exactly like any other link to an article?' " How many people agreeing not to link to an irrelevant article does it take to make a consensus? --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So you did. They were in such a hurry they put out a half-baked RfC, so what do you expect? But to answer the question you posted back then, there seems to be no reason to ask that question - to do so would elevate date articles to a higher status. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Look out for a fresh new section intended to clarify these ill-planned for ambiguities in the next couple of days. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The only thing ambiguous here is how to deal with people who seem dead set against accepting the results of this RFC for what they are: a clear indicator that automated tools will not work for delinking dates. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"Half-baked RFC", nice... and of course the other RFC was written on a stone tablet by God and handed down to Tony directly I take it? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope: I am God. Tony (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Locke, something which is conceived to stop a quarrel by delivering 'a satisfactory response' but -through misdesign, negligence, insufficient thought or inadequate planning - delivers an ambiguous response which only prolongs the argument can only be described as half-baked, IMHO. Any other term is just playing semantics. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the date of foundation of an establishment which is the subject of an article is a very good example of a relevant date link. Deb (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No. It is a relevant date, an important fact, but not a high-value link. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, Goodmorningworld; any unbiased editor will note the lack of consensus on questions 2 and 4 of the detailed RfC. Tony's RfC is irrelevant to the question of whether any particular year should be linked, only that years should not be linked absent a reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously automated removal of date links should cease, but none of the anti-date link crowd around here will hear of it. In their minds all date links are evil, despite clear consensus for keeping date links (be they month-day or simply year) at the recently concluded month long RFC. I'll spell it out again for Lightmouse, Tony, Greg and so forth: It is IMPOSSIBLE for an automated script/program to enact the community consensus view. Each date must be looked at individually and judged to be relevant or irrelevant on a case by case basis. You cannot simply run a script on hundreds of pages and remove date links and claim you've got the backing of the community because you don't. The only backing you have is the MOSNUM regulars who represent only a fringe view of the actual community. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

...And the numerous FAC/FLC editors who allowed the date links to be removed even before the initial deprecation, as well as the numerous editors who did not protest when the articles on their watchlists were delinked. What clear consensus are you talking about? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

<YAWN> This is old hat. We all know that it's the same old gang of five which was opposed to any form of delinking. Take a look at the article now. The OP accepts that this is a good way out, providing useful context without linking to the trivia article. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

<YAWN> This is old hat indeed, same crowd still persisting at pushing THEIR preferred way over the top of the entire community. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So FAC/FLC editors override community wide consensus? Since when? And the clear consensus at the recently concluded RFC, which you know about already, and feigning ignorance is not useful here. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as those articles (FAs/FLs) are the best that Wikipedia has to offer, I think it would be suitable to consider them as model articles. Last I checked, there were two RfCs, in which one of them showed very strong opposition for linking of dates. Not only that, but most of the commenters on that RfC were against nearly all, if not all, date links (read their comments). I note that although much ado was made on the creation and development of the "detailed" RfC, there has been little to no effort to collate and analyze the results of either. I would also point to Proposal 3 the previously linked RfC, where there was clearly consensus to allow semi-automated and automated edits for these type changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The other RFC only asked editors if they approved of inserting very specific language in to MOSNUM. The second RFC asked their opinion on various issues relating to date links and date auto formatting. It's that second RFC which controls here. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody asked a question about keeping date links. You asked "When should date links be made?" and the answer was "Very rarely" and "Only when relevant". The vast majority of date links are demonstrably useless in providing any relevant extra information for the article containing the link, and should be removed. The consensus is to make them when they add value and I've yet to find one that does. In fact, there's a catch-22: if a link to a factoid in a date article actually were to add value, that that factoid would almost inevitably be better incorporated in the original article. In the 1 in 1,0000,000 case where that's not desirable, then you have everyone's blessing to put it back. In the meantime, please don't hold up the removal of the other 999,999 valueless date links by insisting that they be done by hand. --RexxS (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you can demonstrate their usefulness on a case by case basis, not in an automated fashion which runs roughshod over community consensus for allowing some (but not all) date links. I also dispute your claim of "1 in 1,000,000" being the case for keeping, obviously. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because of articles like 1992 or May 19, links are going to be desirable in more cases than 1 in 1,0000,000. However, exclude articles about chronological items, certain holiday articles (April Fools' Day, New Years' Day, Christmas Day, etc.) and maybe a couple globally important articles that have important dates (Armistice Day), and there are few, if any, dates that should be linked. "Then you can demonstrate their usefulness on a case by case basis" That would be instruction creep at its worst. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you need to get community consensus that only those select dates and years are relevant. But you haven't, so you don't have consensus. As to "instruction creep", consider your proposal: the community has said date and year links are useful under certain circumstances, but you and yours are blindly removing them from dozens and hundreds of articles each day. You're totally ignoring what the community told you in favor of your preferred method of operation. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I did engage in hyperbole. I should have said, "In the 1 in 1,0000 case where that's not desirable, then you have everyone's blessing to put it back. In the meantime, please don't hold up the removal of the other 999 valueless date links by insisting that they be done by hand." I must also admit that I was impressed by 1992. What a good looking article! Out of curiosity, I followed my own advice, but still couldn't see how George H W Bush throwing up in Japan improved my understanding of Antarctic Treaty System; or how Mike Tyson's conviction for rape helped me get a handle on Andrew S. Tanenbaum; or even how the Kentucky Supreme Court finding same-sex sodomy laws to be unconstitutional shed any sort of light on Armed Forces of Belarus (although that linked to 1992 twice). Forgive me. I just don't understand. --RexxS (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That square box you're seeing this in is called a web browser. People browse the web, sometimes looking for something specific, sometimes looking for only things with only a minor relationship, but at any rate, it all comes back to browsing. Just because you do not see the value in being able to click a date and see other things that happened on that date (or year), doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Locke, thank you for that most patronising and mildly sarcastic response. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking a page from your playbook. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• You got it wrong, amigo, I'm Ok at being sarcastic, but my ability at being patronising isn't a patch on you. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you, Locke. I am always grateful for education, even in my autumn years. Before you go could you explain to me the purpose of those blue words up in the top left corner of my squarebox? Yes, those - last blob down in the squarebox labelled 'navigation'. Thanks in advance. Your eager student, --RexxS (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So only one method of navigation is useful? Another method isn't? For the same reason we have Special:Random, we have potentially useless (although occasionally useful) date links. It's fascinating to me all the arguments against date links: "sea of blue", "dilute the value of relevant links", etc. The only time there's a sea of blue usually is in some chronological bit of prose, and the dilution argument is just silly; anyone who browses here for more than a few minutes will understand that date links just link to articles about those specific dates (not necessarily related to the original article). WP:NOTPAPER and all that. This is all irrelevant though, the community doesn't support mass delinking and editors engaging in the act should stop. Whether you agree or not, or see the value proposition or not, is irrelevant. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Locke, I'm glad we've got to the nub of the disagreement. Would you do me the courtesy of looking at WP:Manual of Style (dates_and_numbers)/Date Linking RFC#Relevancy? I think we can now agree that the majority (at least) of date articles are not relevant to the articles that link to them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be of the opinion that date article links add a kind of "browsing" value sufficient to outweigh WP:Context; others do not share that opinion. If that's the essential point, then make your case. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to that concept, and remain open to be convinced that it might be a reasonable exception to WP:Context. At present however, I just don't see the consensus for that exception. Not kidding this time, and sincerely, --RexxS (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to argue this, but we're veering off here. The RFC (specifically, the second one) shows a clear lack of consensus for removing all date links in an automated fashion. And yes, I believe date links (month-day/year) should be exempt from WP:CONTEXT, and as the community shows at worst no consensus and at best a consensus to keep some of them, I think it's safe to say they are an exception. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Locke Cole, as I have said before, these are the things that we can glean from this RfC as of yet:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM#Proposal 1: A return to the linking of dates and date fragments – Date fragments should not be linked unless there is a reason to do so; and at that, very rarely.
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM#Proposal 3: Automated/semi-automated compliance with any particular guideline requires consensus – The use of automatic or semi-automatic processes to bring articles in line with the style guide does not require special consensus.
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Date_Linking_RFC#Support_deprecation – Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting; again, the actual comments on the oppose section indicate that opinion against these links are stronger than that.
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Date_Linking_RFC#When_to_link_to_Month-Day_articles Month-day links should be linked very rarely.
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Date_Linking_RFC#When_to_link_Year_articles – Year links can be made sometimes, although consensus leans toward less of these rather than more.
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Date_Linking_RFC#When_to_use_.22Year_in_Field.22_links – Although year in field links can be made, there is no consensus of how to do this yet. Therefore, we return to the status quo: Try to avoid hidden year-in-field links in prose, but use them in tables and infoboxes as necessary.

There, I have made my case with specific citations. Feel free to respond with a similar level of detail, instead of generally saying something about the "community". Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe I missed someone else’s summary of the RfCs somewhere else, but this is the first I’ve seen of a nice executive summary of the results of all those RfCs. Thanks Dabomb87; we need that. Greg L (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fascinating stuff, especially considering you still seem to be supporting automated removal of date links despite admitting that there are cases (even rare cases) where they should remain. How do you reconcile the inability of a script to determine if a date/year link is valuable against your read of the consensus of the RFCs? BTW, as regards the first RFC, those results are meaningless for our discussions as participants were only asked if specific language should be inserted into MOSNUM, not what their opinions in general were. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If the cases are rare, then somebody can easily go back and relink that date; nobody is stopping them. It helps if they provide a reason instead of just undoing the edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume that one percent of these links is justified. Is it easier to link one date by hand or is it easier to delink ninety-nine? We have a mess to clean up, the job is huge—best suited for a bot. Let it be the relatively tiny task of (re)linking any justified links (back) up that we leave up to humans. Such links could be tagged (with a hidden comment or template) to tell bots (& humans) that the linking was intentional & any thoughtless/discussionless removal would not be appreciated. JIMp _talk·cont 11:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

JimP's logic is inescapable; however, one in 100 is rather generous. More like one in 10,000 is useful. But whatever the proportion, it's mighty small. Tony (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Find a script that can discern a valuable date from an invaluable date and we'd be golden. But since even one percent of those links may be valuable it defies belief that we would require our editors to go through after the fact and relink dates that were already linked. And again, I disagree with the low percentage of valuable links, I personally find them all to be valuable as a browsing aid (but assuming that's not the consensus view, the RFC consensus is clear that some links are appropriate). What's worse is that when people DO re-add links you have these automated scripts/bots coming through and delinking the dates again. This situation is simply untenable and those promoting it are making a mistake. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but as the Date Linking RfC showed, there is much more community consensus behind the idea that date links are useless, especially for the Month-day links. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• On the topic of the first RfC, it was, of course, a Request for Comment, not a Request for Vote. I would guess that many commentators in that RfC would rightly be offended to hear their contributions described as 'meaningless'. The second RfC did no more to ask for general opinion, as it should have elicited opinion on whether "Date links should be treated the same as ordinary links (rather than as an exception)". I think most would agree that we could have used the answer to that. --RexxS (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinions may vary as to the percentage of date links with any value but I believe consensus is putting it well below this arbitrary one percent I pulled out of my hat. One percent is generous—even the one percent of one percent Tony mentions is probably inflated—but let's go with it for now. If "it defies belief that we would require our editors to go through after the fact and relink dates that were already linked", surely it must defy belief 99 times over that we would require our editors to go through and by hand delink those dates without value. What difference makes the status quo? It's the ends not the means which are important. Let's clean this mess up in as efficient a way as possible. As for a bot-proof linking system see my suggestion below. JIMp _talk·cont 20:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Purposeful automated removal of year links: there are better ways to accomplish this

• Well, since there seems to be some editors who haven’t grasped the simple concept that “the proper response to bad speech is better speech”, I have to re-post my post. Don’t dare revert me again. I’ve removed the *s*-words since a couple of you seem so intent on playing childish games like trying to seize the moral high ground by pretending to dictate to me how I may think or express my thoughts. I’d rather get my below point across than play such stupid games.

  Earle, it is not “indiscriminate” removal; it is “purposeful” removal. Get your facts straight. The RfCs seemed clear enough to me on two points: 1) that bots may be relied upon to semi-automate the tasks that would be well beyond the capability of a mere mortal, and 2) that routine linking of dates to Wikipedia’s utterly mindless trivia articles is to no longer be done.

  If you think linking to trivia is such a fantabulous idea, let’s see you read through just four of them (here at Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house) and earn yourself a Sewer Cover Barnstar in the process for your unbridled bravery. Doing so I will at least help us to accept that you actually like the puke you expect our articles should be linking to. But just because you can prove you can stomach through reading that crap will only prove that you like reading mindless crap; it will come up short of convincing proof that those trivia articles are “compelling reading” that most readers appreciate. Greg L (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  P.S. If you think readers of an article on an upper school in England will be fascinated to learn such breathtaking trivia as [In 1624:] The Japanese Shogun expels the Spanish from the land and severs trade with the Philippines, then add a link in the See also section that says • Other notable events of 1624. That way, readers will know precisely what they will be clicking on, you can better advise of the availability of the topic, and one accomplishes that end without turning yet more main body text into a giant blue turd. Greg L (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I see Greg L has restored his abuse. My comment, which he removed, follows. I intend to raise the issue of his conduct on this page in the appropriate forum shortly. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 00:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Abuse removed for a second time: there are better ways to get people to listen.

"Don’t dare revert me again"? Who does Greg L think that he is that he can threaten other editors? As I'm involved in this discussion I won't be taking administrative action by myself, but will refer this to others should such behavior continue. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 23:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• As you can see, I’ve already started an ANI for your outrageous conduct. Your protestations of “abuse” are absurd. Greg L (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your potty mouth and outraged comments are more absurd still. Bring it on.

Now you've got that out of your system, I look forward to continuing the discussion with editors who are able to express themselves cogently. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 00:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• “Potty mouth”? LOL! Are we in 2nd grade now? What part of my above post is “abusive” den mother? That’s what you cited when you censored me. Methinks thou doth protest too much. Don’t try to hide behind the apron strings of “potty mouth” or “abusive” or “personal attacks” because you are just flat wrong. Just address the issues and stop trying to delete posts you find to be *inconvenient*. Damn, there will be hell to pay if you keep that up. And stop trying to throw your admin weight around. Answer me this please. Just how old are you? Seriously, I’m trying figure out how all that power went to your head here that you can censor my above post. Greg L (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Further, as I see you have dropped a hint, above, that you are an admin who might go solicit some friend to do some dirty work, I’ve also asked a crat to keep an eye on you. Based on your lack of judgement here, I wonder how it is you got by Wikipedia’s vetting process. Finally, in my first edit summary, I wrote Earth calling Earle Martin: The proper response to bad speech is better speech. Don’t presume you can censor others. Yet you chose to overlook that little gem of good advise, and instead chose to focus on “Don’t dare revert me again” and claim that is some sort of “threat”. I think you are damaging to Wikipedia and should be stripped of your administrative privileges. I suggest you go cool off and get out of this discussion if you can’t control yourself any better. Greg L (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Have cup of coffee, a Pall Mall (or whatever your vices are) and relax. Come back in a day or two, put the guns on the table, shake hands and try starting the discussion over with a clean slate and clear heads. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 02:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Mmmm… Coooooffeeeee. That just might be able to make my censored (completely deleted) posts seem like a non-issue. “Might.”

  As for getting on track: the general consensus on RfCs is abundantly clear and it is not at all sporting for some here to posture about how it’s not fair to let bots loose to fix the dates. The RfC on bot activity is clear too. The vast majority of our date links gotta go because they are not germane and topical to the articles in which they are linked. But…

  Two notable exceptions are “February 5, 1965” and “September 13, 1965” in our Trivia article: those, curiously, were not linked. Now fixed (and with piping so they don’t autoformat). Greg L (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sound advice indeed. Ommmm, Ommmm, Ommmm. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, RexxS pointed out that I missed “March 1” in our Trivia article. That is now fixed too. Some editors here want dates linked. I can not possibly think of a more suitable article within which to link dates to articles on historical trivia. It is a perfect way to provide readers interested in trivia with more understanding of the topic. Very topical. Very germane. Greg L (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ahh, Tony didn't see the connenction :( Dabomb87 (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Gee, for an article on trivia of all things, linking three dates there seemed imminently germane and topical to me; a great way to better learn about the subject. Perhaps not. Greg L (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's bring them before the ArbCom

Since there's no consensus for indiscriminated automated removal of all year links, let's bring all owners of robots (User:Lightmouse for his User:Lightbot and User:Dabomb87) before the ArbCom. Forcing of their POV is totally unwikipedian. If they wish to orphan articles 499 BC to 2059, the only proper way for doing it is WP:AfD —Guy Peters ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 20:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration is only a last resort for dispute resolution. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And ArbCom will just say it's a content dispute, anyway. I'm not sure I agree, but that's what they'll say. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The way to go is to organize a call for votes on the proposition that bots should never be used to delink dates. I don't believe they would go against such a vote.Dejvid (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but their behavior here (ignoring consensus, performing mass disputed edits, ignoring calls to stop or do it in a way that acknowledges the community consensus, etc) can be dealt with by ArbCom. Besides, there's a new slate of arbitrators, perhaps they'll see this differently. At any rate, the non-stop endless debate is disruptive in itself. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you missed it, but you've been talked to on your talk page, there's been an RFC over the issue (because many of you didn't believe the community wouldn't support you), and we've had to two talk page threads here trying to get those operating scripts and bots to see reason and compromise on the issues. But instead the steamroller just keeps on running... you're not leaving us many options. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Locke Cole, as long as you continue to claim that dates are being unlinked "against consensus" without specifying detailed diffs or links (as I did above), your claims will be ignored, as they often have been. The last time you tried to "take action" (in the form of repeated ANI threads), you were not very successful. I must say that in all your haste to set up the RfC to get "real consensus", you and the others involved with it never set up a way to analyze the information to get a definite read on the consensus. This is the product of that haste: we are now back to where we started. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You need some perspective: I was actually very successful at getting many of the people delinking dates against consensus blocked for disruption (quick note: I'm not particularly proud of that, I think blocks are a last resort, but I wasn't left with many options). Only once was a request turned down, and I stopped trying after that. We are not, in fact, where we started. Here's your link: WP:MOSNUM/RFC. The questions about when to link month-day and years are strictly relevant here. The community has decided that some month-day and year links are valuable, and implied with that is the inability for scripts/bots to be used in delinking dates (a script/bot is incapable of "reason" and seeing when such a link might be appropriate). Those of you wishing to continue delinking dates are doing so in a disruptive manner. You've been warned about this repeatedly throughout these discussions. I've urged everyone to try and reach compromise on this, but despite my best efforts you all seem unwilling to discuss the matter (at least in a rational and calm manner, instead intent on forcing your ways through). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dabomb. I agree, except that I don't think we're "back to where we started"; I believe the community has continued to move on, now that it sees the sky hasn't fallen in and that a "smart-linking" approach is a definite improvement. What is telling is that:

• apart from the same noisy "Gang of Five" in-house users, there's absolutely no stream of complaints about "where have our bright-blue dates gone?", or indeed "our bright-blue years/centuries/decades" ... just silence;
• WP:FAC nominators promptly adopted the new guideline without a blink, and our best articles are being promoted using the modern approach as though it always existed.

It seems like a non-issue, and I'm sure an ArbCom complaint would lead straight down the drainpipe. Now, rather than doing this circular dance ad infinitum like little kids in the playground, we need to focus on more important things, like getting year-articles onto a better footing. Currently, they're way under our standards. Who's gonna help? Locke, where are you? Tony (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still dealing with this mess because most of you are intent on forcing your way through "like little kids in the playground". —Locke Cole • t • c 02:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What "mess"? Speaking of more important things, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)/merged. Instead of continuing these stream of generalizations that claim the same things without substance, your input on this overdue merge of three redundant and contradictory guidelines would in fact help to resolve some of the ambiguities on date linking. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The mess caused by mass unlinking of dates against consensus. Maybe you missed it, but people are still complaining here. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Mostly the same people though. When Tony refers to the "Gang of Five", he may be only half-joking. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not really the same people all the time. But that's how you guys seem to convince yourselves that it's okay. Further, even if it WAS the same group, it's not just one editor (me), it's numerous editors. Ignoring us instead of gaining consensus accomplishes nothing for you. And I take the "gang of five" remarks he's made as personal attacks. Disparaging remarks have no place in a community driven by peer respect, communication and consensus development. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur; labeling other users in such a fashion is incivil. And now that I've turned up, must I expect to be similarly labeled for committing the crime of not throwing up my hands and abandoning the issue? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony1: "apart from the same noisy "Gang of Five" in-house users, there's absolutely no stream of complaints... just silence" - given the reaction that anyone with a differing opinion seems to receive here, I am absolutely not suprised. It took a positive amount of force of will for me to get involved after reading the tone of many people commenting. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Locke Cole, are you, seriously, making an admission that you abused admin privileges as an INVOLVED admin? That is a significant breach of WP:ADMIN. Whom did you block?

"I was actually very successful at getting many of the people delinking dates against consensus blocked for disruption (quick note: I'm not particularly proud of that, I think blocks are a last resort, but I wasn't left with many options)."

Tony (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and if I was, I would never use the tools in a dispute I was involved in (conflict of interest). I was referring to the reports I made to WP:AN/EW regarding the edit warring over date links which resulted in a half dozen blocks of those refusing to stop. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems perilously close to gaming the system, that you now feel free to boast of your success in "getting" people blocked for what you construct as "disruption", particularly when the blocks appear to be framed according to your personal claim of what "consensus" was. Did this involve convincing an admin of your particular view of these two concepts, and of disregarding what the style guides said? It's got the makings of a very serious issue. Tony (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you say so Tony, but I wasn't boasting. It was a statement of fact: edits like those done by you, Lightbot, Dabomb87 and on are disruptive when you know you don't have consensus for the automated removal of all date links. It also hinders serious discussion on reaching agreement when the threat of inevitability hangs over your head. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

YEAR ARTICLES ARE NOT 'TRIVIA' ARTICLES

For those who failed history, year articles are NOT trivia articles. They are meant to give a global perspective that intersects with a time perspective. If anyone checks out, for example, the World Almanac, they give lists of historical events in chronological order. This far predates the existence of Wikipedia. However, it seems that some people thinkr that the only thing that is important is what exists NOW, while forgetting that those that analyzing the past can help us follow trends, threads, and figure out where we may be headed in the future.

Just because someone has the biggest trash-mouth doesn't make them right.Ryoung122 23:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oooh, shouting now. Your words are like putting lipstick on a pig and trying to pass it off as a prom date: it’s not working for me here. The facts speak for themselves for anyone who has tried to read through those trivia articles. The only people who’ve managed to read through them have earned themselves a damn barnstar for their heroic efforts (and only six editors have so-far managed to throw their bodies onto the barbed wire to earn their medals). The RfCs are clear; you don’t have to believe the consensus view is the right thing, you just need to abide by it and stop wasting our time with declarations that the consensus is other than what it clearly is. Greg L (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, the RfCs are clear. The consensus is that year links may be appropriate in some cases, so a bot to remove them is inappropriate. (As I agree that most year links are inappropriate, as indicated by the consensus, it might be suitable for a bot to remove them if a year link could be marked as non-removable — not only by bots, but without appropriate specific discussion. I don't want to see edit wars about year links, either.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• No Arthur. There are far, far too many linked dates for any mere mortal to delete them all. They are used all over Wikipedia and must be fixed with a bot. The few cases where links to trivia makes sense can be hand-restored easily enough. Greg L (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your use of circular 'reasoning' by calling date links "trivia" does not make your case..."it's trivia because I call it trivia" is not a good argument.Ryoung122 01:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Because that it what it clearly is. Radio talk show hosts can—and probably do—use our trivia articles on their morning broadcast during their “on this day throughout history” segments. You can call our trivia articles “cogent, well-organized history” if you want. But the articles still virtually never have jack to do with the articles from which they are linked. Links have to be germane and topical to the subject matter. If not, they gotta go. If you can figure out a better way to handle the millions of date links that doesn’t require a bot, I’m all ears. But we both know a bot is the only way address such huge numbers. Greg L (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• And ironically enough, the same criticism of 'circular reasoning' applies to the original: Just because you say (read: shout), "YEAR ARTICLES ARE NOT 'TRIVIA' ARTICLES" doesn't make that true either. We need to look at the evidence, not just a set of assertions. Pick a year at random; go to that article; look at "What links here"; pick one of those articles linked to the year article; then, as dispassionately as you are able, examine the linking article and see if anything in the year article adds value or understanding to the linking article. Now ask yourself the question: "If that kind of link was made to a non-year article, would I even think twice about removing it per WP:Context?" Go on, be honest. Now repeat that until you can find a decent example of a relevant link to a date article (and let us know). Or give up now that you know what the odds are of finding a good link. --RexxS (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• A list of unrelated events (except for the fact that they happened on the same year) will hardly provide "global perspective that intersects with a time perspective". On the other hand, systemic bias and recentism will ensure that this is will not be the case. Now, if all year articles were organized like 1345, then I might concede. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is refuted for me by a recent LightBot edit I saw (provenance unknown, it's made too many edits to track through). The article was along the lines of a monarchic succession or some such in 1943, in a nation then involved in, umm, World War II. I did check the 1943 article and yeah, it had a bunch of "trivia" about WWII. For someone who was born after the beginning of time in 1990, that may be trivial, but it does a great disservice to our general readership. 1943 does indeed provide "global perspective that intersects with a time perspective" - I suppose maybe you had to be there to understand (thankfully, I wasn't).
• The LightBot/automated removal discussion may be moot anyway, since last I checked it's finished "Z..." articles and moving on to template-space. Mission accomplished - stall the objections and keep operating the bot until it's done. A successful implementation of "facts on the ground".
• Now I'll accept the RFC that indiscriminate year linking should not be done, but I also observe that limited and appropriate year-linking is acceptable. This will be impossible if the bot (or other scripts) are going to again apply an indiscriminate rule, i.e. if I judiciously restore a year link, is it going to be blindly removed, or will it be subject of editorial discussion i.e. the talk page?
• Will Lightmouse stop the bot runs after the comprehensive removal is complete? Franamax (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Did the articles link to World war II? If they did not, they probably should, as that is definitely a good link. Most of the relevant facts from 1943 are probably in the WWII article already. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) First off, I'm going to challenge the fundamental premise of this thread. The OP said "For those who failed history, year articles are NOT trivia articles. They are meant to give a global perspective that intersects with a time perspective." This is completely false, as there is no such intention at all. A visit to WP:YEARS and Wikipedia:Timeline standards yields no mission statement to that effect. The stated objective is to standardise the format, thereby creating an almanac. To my mind, that intention has contributed to this pisspoor state of trivia in years articles. In fact, these projects have been so 'successful' in imposing that format that, out of the thousands of articles which come under their banner, there is not one single GA or FA among them. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Yes, exactly. The upshot is that better ways to organize timelines and year articles do exist. See Timeline of the 1994 Atlantic hurricane season and 1345. Obviously, even 1345 needs tweaking; it failed its GA nomination. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Newsflash: It's not the year articles themselves that are trivial (although most are not in good shape) – it's the indiscriminate linking to them in the assumption that they are relevant to a particular context. There's almost always a stony silence after I ask indiscriminate linkers for evidence that the link will enable our readers to increase their understanding of the topic. This is suspicious. Tony (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well said Tony; a cogent nutshell of what the issue is about. Please, let’s all get back to expanding articles and ridding them of errors. There has been far, far too much bickering over formatting and linking of dates. It’s really OK if dates look and behave like regular old text; they’re not all that special. More than that, it’s better if they look like regular old text unless there is something very topical and germane to the subject matter of the article.

  In the mean time, a great way to let editors know about relevant material in a historical-list (trivia) article is to do as has been done here on Kilogram—a GA article—where two, unambiguous links are first in line in its See also section. Those two linked articles now probably get more visits by virtue of this method than they ever would have with the old method. Greg L (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If this indiscriminate delinking of dates would stop then we would be able to stop this "bickering over formatting and linking of dates". And just because you do not find linking of dates as useful do not assume that others do not. Given that history covers such a large span there is a danger of learning things as isolated events. Checking what was happening at the same time as a specific event helps tie things together.Dejvid (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't help encourage responses, Tony, when your requests are combined with trash talking like "dislexia?" or "mental illness?". Tennis expert (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You all might be interested in the discussion I've started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the RFCs, Army's suggestion above, and the like, it seems clear that what is being argued towards on both sides is to aim towards using more "year in field" type links, with the current year pages being reorganized to provide sections/links to such "year in field" articles. This is not all years, of course, but when pointing to a year in field will help to provide chronological context for the linked event. This will help to remove the trivial-ness of the year articles (and if organized right, will allow users to explore the events of other parts of the year), and make any linking more relevant. The only issue is how these year in field links are to be made, as there wasn't strong consensus of any way. The only time a bare year should be linked directly is the discussion of that year from a calendar/timekeeping format, as well as for organizing of the "year in field" pages. --MASEM 15:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm the editor of 1345, 1346 (which is completely cited and now a GA nominee), and 1347. I think that those articles are just beginning to show how incredibly useful year articles can be. Yes, I hate the listy trivia our year articles are now, but the answer is not to split them up and delete them, as Army suggests. All you would have is similarly low-quality split-offs of the old year article. Masem, you say that "This will help to remove the trivial-ness of the year articles," but it wouldn't. It would just be a bunch of useless trivia split off into even more useless articles than we have now. What improvement would that be? The answer is not to create a new problem in thousands of useless split-offs, the answer is to improve the year articles themselves, the HARD WAY, with work, research, and negotiation. Anything else is an artificial solution. Otherwise, someone will come along later saying, "Why are we linking to these useless, trivial, Year in X articles?" Splitting it off like army suggests will just make more of a problem. I'm in favor of ending autoformatting and removing most links to year articles, but deleting year articles is taking it way too far.

I'm interested in, as Masem says, figuring out how to divide year articles into relevant sections, so that someone could link to 1346#Western Europe or something. Some articles would be harder than others to sort out, but it could be done. Just having a list of events is less helpful when it comes to context. Perhaps some of the editors here would be interested in joining the years project. As of now, we have representatives from both sides of the spectrum: eg. Tony1 and Arthur Rubin. There is no doubt we need to fix the dismal state of year-related articles on wikipedia. Perhaps figuring out how to section off and organize year articles would be a good place to start. Wrad (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

For "deep" history articles, I see the approach you used to be a good approach as to write an encyclopedia article about a year, though I'm having trouble based on the RFC results of still when we link to those - this is potentially an issue though arguably these could stand alone with minimal linking from article space. When you get more contemporary (say 1969), I'm not sure if "per region" works, but there's bound to be a better breakdown. However, we should still encourage on a separate mapping (through lists or categories) the "year-in-field" type articles/categories which would be adjunct to this and one would not have to worry too much about figuring out breakdowns. --MASEM 21:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Newer articles couldn't be broken down as well by region it's true, but we should also avoid making them too broken down. An article should be organized as an article, it shouldn't be organized purely out of concern for linking policy. More recent year articles are already split into dozens of different category articles, and splitting the article similarly into sections that match all of those subarticles would make it schizophrenic and indecipherable. We need to avoid that extreme. Wrad (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't know when 1346 should be linked too, either, and I concede that it is probably linked to too much, but I would prefer not having a bot decide, if you know what I mean. Wrad (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Unifying date formats within articles

per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Full_date_formatting

Format consistency

• Dates in article body text should all have the same format.
• Dates in article references should all have the same format.

These requirements apply to dates in general prose and reference citations, but not to dates in quotations or titles.

As for real discussion: I couldn't care less about user preference for MDY versus DMY date formatting; I too would leave it at the default setting. What I would like to see is a way to mark the article "Use DMY order" or "Use MDY order" (and possibly other options, but these are unlikely to be needed in practice), and a way to use that so every template that manipulates dates doesn't require extra parameters be supplied to every instantiation to specify the output format.

— Anomie⚔ 04:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, I created {{dmy}} and {{mdy}} in the hopes that it could make future automated maintenance easier. There are currently AWB and monobook scripts written by my friend Lightmouse for unifying (not just de-DA) dates to a preferred format. My idea is to incorporate these tags into the relevant scripts, so that we can potentially insert these tags to the top of any given article while doing semi-automated conversions. Tags would indicate that work has been done to convert all dates (exc ISO) to a given format. Down the line, a bot can be programmed to maintain all those articles which have been so tagged, so that new edits can be made to conform to the same format.

The tags can remain invisible, as at present, or they can be made to insert markers of some description like the star at the top of each featured article. Because they are transcluded templates, categories, such as Category:Articles with American date formats or Category:Articles with International date formats could be created, if needed. However, I dare say a bot can just as easily spot the tags within the articles and go to work on them. Obviously, articles which have 'special' date formats would either escape tagging, or have another tag, for example {{notdate}} to prevent undesirable bot action. Once again note that although the tag is designed be placed on articles during or after the semi-automated process of stripping dates of the DA tags and unifying date formats (US or International), it can be put on articles by editors who wish for a bot to pass in order to accelerate transformation of an article with numerous inconsistently formatted dates to the desired format. The removal of the tag would only serve to avoid bot action on converting dates to the format so designated by the tag. As of yesterday, I have already started inserting it - see here.

For the avoidance of doubt, this discussion is not about the act of stripping dates of their baggage (sic), but about the unification of date formats. Constructive comments thereon would be welcome. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. We see similar tags or notices for articles that are in a particular variety of English. It helps everyone and prevents arguments. --Pete (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We already have {{British English}} and the like, but these are intended for talk pages, and they are rarely useful anyway. But it would be useful to create templates with a similar purposes for use on the articles themselves, which would produce no visible output, and, if possible, which would trigger editnotice warnings (e.g the one you get when you edit an article containing {{disambig}}). This way, if I were to write colour in an article, I wouldn't need to scan it to find any instance of a word spelt differently in different dialects in order to decide whether to include that u. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Date linking template

As we are discussing the use of templates to tell bots what to do with dates; how about a template which would say "This link is meant to stay."? What I have in mind is a template which would take a day and month and/or a year and provide an unautoformatted link for the "rare" cases where we might want them. You'd input three parameters: day, month and year or month, day and year; two parameters: day and month or month and day; or one parameter: a plain year. The thing would add correct punctuation & nonbreaking spaces and link them up (with pipelinks to disable autoformatting which, for consistency, might be desireable). I'm just mentioning it since it could be done. Of course, you must wonder whether there are enough justified date links to warrant writing such a template ... I'm not convinced that there are. JIMp _talk·cont 12:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Another editor insisted a year link of his worth keeping, and I showed him he could make it better without having it. He agreed it was better. I'm prepared to take on that challenge for that 1 in 10,000 date links. In the meantime, let the bots get on with the job of sweeping up the detritus. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, if you really believe that Earle Martin was agreeing it was better rather than holding back to avoid an edit war, you need a reality check.Dejvid (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Dejvid is on the mark here. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 12:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oconfucius's offer to help is ineffective because most affected editors will not know about the offer. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also ineffective because one link in 10,000 would still be thousands of links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So you want others to remove 9,999 times thousands of links by hand? --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If one link in 10,000 is still thousands of links, 9,999 in 10,000 is tens of millions ... now we're talking ineffective. JIMp _talk·cont 20:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in the following process:

1. Holding off bot runs for 2 weeks
2. Creating a template that "saves" year links (presents them in a way the bot will ignore simply because they don't look like double-bracket year links -- that is, there is no need to change any bot code to support this)
3. Announce at VPP and other places, and give users two weeks to apply the template to any year they feel is necessary.
4. Let the bots sweep all remaining year links
5. Now we can use the template to see if any of those remaining year links really should be there or not, as, if as Ohconfucious suggests, its possible to change editors' minds where they are to be used, all the better.

We have no deadline to get rid of the links though we know we're going there. They've been around a long time, lets give editors a bit of time to make sure they're protected what they want. The other way, letting the bots sweep any year link and then having editors add back for those they wanted, will first off seem a bit mean-spirited, but secondly, we'll have a harder time tracking when year links are put back instead of the benefit the template gives us. --MASEM 20:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Masem, I believe your inputs are in good faith, but your intermittent calls for us to pause the automated and semi-automated housecleaning in such a gargantuan project (for a week or two, here and there) are like labour-union calls not to automate telephone exchanges back in the 1950s. Sure, mistakes and false-positives occur, but we have the benefit of skilled, hard-working and sensitive operators such as Lightmouse, Dabomb, Colonies Chris and Ohconfucius, to name just a few. These users have been successfully refining the system, which I believe sets the standard for further innovations for automated assistance to WP editors. Relying on the manual correction and improvement of articles is very 19th-century. Tony (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to stall the removal of links - it clearly was shown, it should proceed. But if you don't set up some announcement and plan for grandfathering links that should stay (something that a bot cannot determine and has to be done by hand at some point, before or after) you are going to encourage minor edit warring. Prep people, and they'll accept other changes more readily, instead of being resentful of "surprise" changes. --MASEM 02:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Masem, the last time we "notified" people about these type edits on WT:FAC, WT:FLC, Village Pump, the Signpost dispatch (after date-delinking was deprecated in August), we still had vocal complaints from a small group of people. I'm not sure how we would go about doing this. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the bulk of the complaints can be answered by pointing at the RFC - date delinking is a reality. But this is to help streamline removing the rest of the dates without minimal negative feedback. If you guys don't want to do it, that's fine, but be aware you will likely get a good handful of complaints when you do it without warning. --MASEM 03:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Do bots eliminate links such as [[January 10|10 January]] or [[January 10|January 10]]? If they don't, just mention that on those bots' userpages. (Anyway, I think that no more than a dozen articles or so should actually link to January 10.) -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 10:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bots could be programmed to ignore such links. What I'd had in mind was a template, which would naturally be ignored since the bot is looking for links not templates, but this might be the simpler solution (depending on how many of these links we're keeping. One advantage with the template is that we can keep track of the pages which use it. JIMp _talk·cont 11:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How about modifying the existing template {{date}} to accept a parameter that adds a link? So writing as date as {{date|11 January 2009|link}} would be converted to [[11 January]] [[2009]] dynamically and show up as 11 January 2009. A bot would not touch it. −Woodstone (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking arbitration

I've started a request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Date delinking which those reading here may wish to comment on. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, we were laughing about that this morning. Greg L (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  What do you mean "we", Kemosabe? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Some of us besides you. Greg L (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• • (More appropriate here, then there.) The "I refuse to comment" comments seem to be good grounds for an injunction against those people adding or removing any date links, either by bot, AWB, even if there were a prior consesnus. They show a lack of respect for Wikipedia process. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I have ample respect of admiration for the process (such as the extensive and wise work that went into this decision to reign in an editor who was POV-pushing on Cold fusion). I simply feel that Locke’s complaint is abuse of the system by a whiner who wasn’t getting his way. I fully expect ArbCom to refuse to get involved—in part—for that very reason (and because this is clearly a dispute over article content and how rapidly to fix that content).

      As for my refusing to be involved, it is a matter of principle. I’m not about to let one Mr. Locke Cole (who resides who-knows-where on this pale blue dot), dictate how I might enjoy my hobby here on Wikipedia or control my life in anyway whatsoever—particularly over such a whiny-ass, sore-looser stunt. WT:MOS and WT:MOSNUM are marketplaces where ideas are exchanged. Locke isn’t impressed with the direction things are going here right now (apparently you aren’t either). Well, so sad—too bad. In the grand scheme of things on a 1–10 scale of importance, this issue over which you two have your panties in a bunch is a nice solid 1.2 (or maybe 1.3). Concern over which restaurant Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie ate at yesterday is about the only damn thing I can think of at the moment that might possibly be less important. I have zero interest whatsoever in getting swept up in your überdrama and wikilawyering.

      As is typical with your other arguments here, I take great pride and pleasure in pronouncing that I agree with nothing whatsoever in your above post, Arthur. Greg L (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

      • Is this bot seriously set up to remove all links to years and dates everywhere on wikipedia? If the answer is no, which dates is it not removing? Wrad (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Wrad, with 6,829,465 articles on en.Wikipedia, there are probably over a million linked dates. That is far too many for humans to manually correct. Bots are automated tools—like a power saw—operated by humans. The only practical way to fix our article content is do our best—within the limits of available technology—to ensure that bot activity is within the scope of the latest consensus view on date linking, and let bot-operating editors do their work unimpeded by obstructionists. Those dates that prove to have been improperly swept up in bot activity can easily be re‑linked by hand.

          Note that this will also give us an opportunity to let editors put some of these dates in articles’ See also sections. For instance, check this link out: Giovanni Fabbroni after several years of research chose to redefine the standard in 1799 to water’s most stable density point. Click on that link please. Where do you expect to go? When dates such as these are de‑linked, and we want to re‑link them, the existence of articles such as these need to be conveyed in a better way to readers, such as seen here in Kilogram. Greg L (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

        • I'm assuming that the answer, then, is yes, the bot is removing all date link everywhere on wikipedia? It would be a massive and necessary task to relink everything that needs relinking. That task could be avoided by identifying categories which are more likely to have appropriate links and have the bot avoid them. For example, have the bot avoid all articles in categories specifically discussing dates or which are timelines themselves. I shudder at the thought of the enormous task it would be for us in the Years project to relink everything when all we have to do is tell the bot to stay away from certain categories. Wrad (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
          • • (edit conflict) To answer your question Wrad, Lightbot, the only fully automated date delinker, removes year and decade links only (perhaps also century links). The AWB script and monobook.js script, which is used by humans, requires human oversight. Those scripts delink all chronological items and have the option of making the delinked dates the same format, either international and American. Additionally, these scripts have the function of delinking common terms, such as well-known geographical locations. The scripts allow for their users to view and modify their changes before saving. As an example, see what I did here to Armistice Day. I used the script to delink dates and common terms, then re-linked two dates, setting them so that autoformatting is disabled. As an aside, I have never seen a useful date link on an article, with the exception of holiday articles and date articles themselvs. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
              • • I want to make sure I'm being understood. Date links always link to timelines. If you click on a date link within a timeline article, "Where do you expect to go?" (to quote Greg). If I was in a timeline article, I expect to go to another timeline article. That is completely in context with what I was reading. Therefore, there is at least one place in which date links are appropriate, and that is within timeline/date articles themselves. I am asking that the Lightbot, then, not be allowed to delink date links within such articles at all, ever. That should be a human issue. Wrad (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Depends on what type of timeline. See Timeline of the 1994 Atlantic hurricane season. You should probably ask User:Lightmouse about it. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Dabomb87. Wrad: I’m saying that there are clearly dates currently being de-linked that editors feel should be linked. I’m further saying that isn’t a big deal. No, I’ll go beyond that and say it is a very small deal. Further, it is actually a good thing because there are better ways to let readers know about our specialty year links like “this year in music” and “this year in science”, etc. If you want to know the details of how these bots work, stop by on the talk pages of those who operate them, such as Lightmouse.

  Finally, with regard to your … massive and necessary task to relink everything that needs relinking… and …shudder at the thought of the enormous task…, that too is A) your opinion, and B) is überdrama. Any reasonable reading of the RfCs shows that the current consensus is that it is a rare date indeed that ought to be linked; ergo, bot delink, and hand re‑link only those dates that a reasonable interpretation of the current consensus says ought to be linked. Greg L (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Greg, I agree that almost all date links are useless. I believe I've said that several times. However, as a member of the Years wikiproject I find that very callous of you to say this really doesn't matter and is just uberdrama. I worked hard on 1345, 1346, and 1347, hoping to inspire people, and so far it is working, slowly but surely. We at the Years project work hard to improve the years portion of wikipedia. Far from being unimportant, year articles are among the most edited on the site, consistently. It would be a massive and unnecessary task to relink everything, and oh-so-simple a thing to avoid. I'm watching out for this project. We have enough things to do, and would rather not be stuck with tasks that could been avoided in the fist place. I would appreciate it if you would show at least a little empathy and help us out here. I have one other question: How is a link from one timeline to another "out of context"? Isn't it what you would expect? Why, then, should we have a bot delete link from timelines when it would be so easy to tell it to ignore them? Wrad (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Very well, Wrad. I deeply respect your contributions to Wikipedia. I just looked at the 1345 article. Although I think something could be done with those first four, unwieldily paragraphs (they look quite a bit like Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house), the rest is quite attractive and impressive work to pull together wide-ranging topics. There is too little of that (building and error correction) going on. And, though we don’t see eye-to-eye on the techniques being used to link to those articles, I completely agree that we need to find a good way to let readers know of the availability of these articles you are working so diligently to improve.

  The tradeoff here is that the old way of letting readers know of these ‘years’ articles was cluttering up our main body text with blue links. I strongly feel (and many others here too) that body-text links should be solidly germane and topical to the subject of the article in which they are linked. If I am reading an article on the years leading up to the Great Depression, I will be interested to know that Black Tuesday is something I can click upon for further reading (or perhaps Social Security). But if I read that The Bank of New York, in 1925 started loaning to individuals in a way…, I will find an enormous amount of information that is totally (colossally) irrelevant to the topic of Great Depression. It is irrelevant that the 1925 article includes such information as October 16 - Angela Lansbury [is born].

  Similarly, if I am reading up on Louis VI the Roman, I am likely interested in Roman-related and nobility-related links. He married Cunigunde in 1345. I propose that since the 1345 article contains so precious little information relevant to to Louis V, but since Louis VI the Roman is clearly a historical article and since 1345 is all-things-historical, a much better way to let readers know of the availability of this information is to add a See also section to Louis VI the Roman and to put a link there that reads • Other notable events of 1345. I this is a much superior method and truly think more readers will be inclined to click on that and explore the article that are currently tempted to click on yet another one of our millions of blue dates. This technique is expanded upon in WP:Why dates should not be linked. Greg L (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• I completely agree with that entire post. I'm just concerned about date links within timeline articles. I don't think that it would be "out of context" to link one timeline article to another through a date link. I don't think that the bot should, say, remove links to 1904 from the 20th century page, see? Wrad (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, Wrad. You are saying that when the topic of the article is intrinsically historical in nature, it is entirely appropriate to link to another historical article. This is nuance I’ve long spoken of. I suggest we try to pull Lightmouse, Tony, and others into this discussion. The details of how to implement the general principles of the RfCs are quite important. They are important because we A) want to improve Wikipedia for our readership, and B) because there should never be activities that discourage hard-working editors from improving Wikipedia by taking all the fun out of it for them. The en.Wikipedia project has a wide variety of subject matter. Moreover, there is more than one tool in our arsenal of available techniques for making readers aware of the existence of other articles for further reading; the art is matching how germane and topical the link is to the technique employed. Greg L (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)