Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Nbsp only before symbols? (Eg, not for before byte?)

"Except as shown in the "Specific units" table below, a space appears between a numeric value and a unit name or symbol. In the case of unit symbols, <!--<<restriction of nobreak markup to symbols, not full unit names, seems to be implied by earlier text in this guideline--> &nbsp;". Just to be clear, MB for megabyte would be a symbol but megabyte isn't and should not be prefixed with nbsp? I can't see logic in that and was that just assumed? And if this is really the intention of the MOS, then it doesn't follow it here itself: "100,000,000,000&nbsp;byte) hard drive". [See also: "21{{nbsp}}million 21{{nbsp}}million".] Jeh reverted [my change to a page]. I will fix it if this is really the intention, but I took a long time the first time around and I would rather not spend more time on it if I was right all along. comp.arch (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In the case of a long number followed by a long unit name, the total length of the text can get rather long and may have to be broken by the software in spite of the nbsp. If the nbsp is added, it might break in a place that is even worse than between the number and the unit name. If the software doesn't force a break, the large amount of white space at the end of the preceding line may be unsightly. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, "100,000,000,000 byte) hard drive" should use a hyphen, not either sort of space, as it's a pair of words forming an adjective. This is spelled out elsewhere on this page. I think some fixes need to be made to the examples here. Jeh (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

btw, comp.arch: I didn't simply revert your change. I took rather a long time on it, finding every use of nbsp and correcting, or not. (There may yet be some uses of number-space-symbol that should be changed to nbsp, but I expect that in your zeal you got all of those.) I also fixed up the uses of "gaps" that included the full unit name in the parameters, changed spaces to hyphens where the use was an adjective, etc. So I don't think there's much left in that area for you to "fix." Jeh (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"21{{nbsp}}million 21{{nbsp}}million" is not an exception because there is no unit there, symbol or spelled out; "21" and "million" are both part of the number, and we would not want a line break between them any more than we'd want one after any of the commas in "21,000,000". Jeh (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

{{convert}} has some detailed rules on this. See Help:Convert#Wrapping_and_line_breaking. -DePiep (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Not commenting on any of the above specifically, but I want to say that there are many places where nbsp and such issues aren't addressed, though they should be. Absence of a statement re nbsp really means nothing. EEng (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I have always understood that use of non-breaking spaces is to avoid the possibility of a line breaking at that point. We use a non-breaking space to avoid a line starting with a unit symbol since such symbols may be less easy to interpret when separated from their numerical value. For example a line commencing

• l in size ...

is less intelligible than a line commencing:

• litres in size ...

even if the preceding line ends with a number like "5". It makes sense then to put   between "5" and "l", but doesn't provide a reason for having one between "5" and "litres". Non-breaking spaces, like other html entities, clog up the wikitext and attempting to over-control page rendering causes problems for display when rendered in browsers operating in narrow windows. I've seen an extension of the over-use of non-breaking spaces leading to nonsense like "twelve&nbsp;men, just and true". I'm certain that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Controlling_line_breaks agrees with my interpretation.

I suggest that we should not only make it explicitly clear that non-breaking spaces are not needed between numerals and full unit names, but also correct those examples in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers #Unit names and symbols that contain misleading markup like "25&nbsp;kilometres". --RexxS (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether to use nbsp or nobreak or thinsp or zwsp or any number of other layout adjustments, beyond the places where MOS suggests they ought to be used, is a choice that depends on all kinds of specifics of the situation; attempts to apply rigid logic are pointless, because typesetting and layout are about how something looks overall. You apparently want to forbid any use not explicitly allowed, but MOS should not prescribe (or proscribe) such things unless there's a repetitive problem wasting editor time over and over in local debates. Your example

"twelve&nbsp;men, just and true"

is not nonsense if there's a good reason for it in context.

And MOS#Controlling_line_breaks does not agree with you: it mentions several places where linebreaks should be controlled, and nothing about where they shouldn't be controlled. See WP:CREEP. EEng (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

By that logic we might as well not have a MOS because anybody can claim exemption from what we usually do because their particular situation is a special case - "a choice that depends on all kinds of specifics of the situation". On the contrary, MOS is a guideline that documents what is normal practice. You seem to think that the purpose of MOS is to forbid things: it most emphatically is not. Policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are descriptive, not prescriptive and that's an important distinction. You only need to look at {{convert}} to see what is normal practice on Wikipedia: numerals and unit symbols are separated by a non-breaking space; numerals and unit names are separated by a normal space.

It is precisely because HTML is a markup language, not a layout language that we try to allow as much flexibility as we can for the browser to control layout, and that is why we keep the use of non-breaking spaces to a minimum. In infoboxes and anywhere where space is limited, it may be desirable to exercise tighter control of line-breaks, but in running prose there is never any need to have nonsense like "twelve&nbsp;men, just and true" and I see that you've conveniently avoided giving any examples of where it is could possibly be sensible markup.

You're plain wrong about Wikipedia:Manual of Style #Controlling line breaks. The examples given accord exactly with normal practice, i.e. numerals and unit symbols are separated by a non-breaking space; numerals and unit names are separated by a normal space - with exceptions only where space is limited such as in infoboxes.

Finally, CREEP is a useful essay and contains this valuable advice: "WP:CREEP" is not a substitute for actual arguments. Lengthy instruction can be appropriate if it represents a broad consensus and does more good than harm. I commend it to you. --RexxS (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• No, I'm right about MOS#Controlling line breaks. It lists a number of places nbsp should be used, but says nothing about not using it elsewhere. And that's what I said it says.
• You're right I didn't give an example of a sensible use of "twelve&nbsp;men, just and true" -- I said there certainly are some. And then you supplied one -- an infobox or caption. Thanks.
• Your talk of a layout versus markup language is just something you made up. Browsers do a very good layout job when left to themselves, but sometimes we step in to tweak. You want to forbid that.
• The lesson of CREEP is that if we don't need a rule, we need to not have a rule. I'm not hearing any need for a rule.

I'd like hear what other editors thing. EEng (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you're wrong about MOS#Controlling line breaks. You say "And MOS#Controlling_line_breaks does not agree with you" Yet anybody who reads it can see that's untrue: there's not one example of a numeral followed by a unit name that is separated by a non-breaking space. That's the sort of consistency with common practice that I've suggested the examples on this page should achieve.

No infobox or caption should contain "twelve&nbsp;men, just and true" - how would you justify that?

If you don't understand the difference between markup language such as html and a layout language such as PostScript, then you shouldn't be pontificating about "sometimes we step in to tweak" when you've demonstrated no understanding of when it's appropriate or desirable to attempt to control web page layout. Yes, browsers do a very good job of matching page layout to window size and that's exactly why we normally don't attempt to override the usual browser behaviour. Avoiding an orphaned unit symbol is one of those rare exceptions; an orphaned unit name is not.

Again, you're confused by thinking the MOS is prescriptive. When we document a common practice in a guideline, we expect there to be exceptions. See WP:PG. You would benefit from gaining some understanding about the purpose of guidelines on Wikipedia. The MOS, like any other Wikipedia guideline, is not a collection of rules, but exists as a repository of guidance on how the community normally does things. --RexxS (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• If you don't think MOS is prescriptive, then you don't know the meaning of prescriptive.
• My point about MOS#Controlling is that it doesn't say you shouldn't use nbsp in cases other than the ones it exemplifies. It therefore doesn't support your idea that, well, you shouldn't use nbsp in cases other than the ones it exemplifies.
• A good example of an unusual situation where nbsp might be used (which arose in an actual article) is

first edition of Poems written by Wil. Shakespeare.

which might easily confuse the reader momentarily if rendered as

first edition of Poems written by Wil.
Shakespeare.

It's therefore reasonable to code this as

first edition of ''Poems written by Wil.{{nbsp}}Shakespeare.''

• I agree that usually there's no need for nbsp between a quantity and a spelled-out unit name. I just don't think we need a rule on this, because I don't see a pattern of overuse, or a problem caused by such a pattern. Can you point to such?

I'm still hoping other editors will opine, assuming they can figure out what we're talking about. EEng (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

STRONGNAT questions for biographies

It seems that STRONGNAT has not considered biographies for its explanation and examples, so questions should be answered to gain some consensus that can be used for bios.

• Are the person's ties to non-English countries relevant for STRONGNAT?

• Does STRONGNAT really mean "stronger ties," when a person had strong ties to more than one English-language country?

• Should citizenship be a major or minor factor for STRONGNAT?

• Should their career notability and place where they became most notable be a major or minor factor for STRONGNAT?

In general, for biographies, what are the key details that should be used? --Light show (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:STRONGNAT and MOS:TIES are for selecting which variety of English to use. Ties to non-English countries are therefore irrelevant. For any remaining ties to multiple countries with different varieties you will have to make a judgement call about which one dominated that person's life. E.g if they were born in England but migrated to the US when they were 2 years old then US English would be used. But if they were born in England, did lots of notable work in England and then migrated to the US when they were 69 years old, then UK English would be better. There will probably be cases where it is hard to choose - in which case toss a coin and stick to it. WP:RETAIN says that once a variety has been chosen then we should stick to it unless there is consensus to change. STRONGNAT would have to overwhelming (ie not a 50/50 case) to override RETAIN.  Stepho  talk  23:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Can that explanation be added to the MOS, since there are countless examples of people who have clearly stronger ties to one English country than another? It might help avoid disputes such as for Einstein's DRN. --Light show (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

We could add to the MOS, "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For biographies, citizenship to an English speaking country denotes a strong national tie, over citizenship to a non English speaking country."--JOJ ^Hutton 17:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:STRONGNAT is a section of MOS:NUM (this subpage). It concerns date format, not variety of English.

WP:TIES or MOS:TIES is a section of WP:MOS (parent of this page). It concerns varieties of English, not date format. --P64 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

If I were to write an article about someone notable who was born in, active in the government of, and died in, the Belgian Congo (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a former Belgian colony, in which English is a second or third language at best), which guideline tells me which variety of English and which date format to use? To anyone that has spent time there, the correct result is obviously en-GB (really en-BE, if we had such a thing) and DMY, but how do we get there, hampered by the seemingly-incorrect modifier "English-speaking" at WP:STRONGNAT? The guideline makes sense without this modifier (with a couple of minor exceptions). (also being questioned at Talk:Albert Einstein) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Followup:Same scenario, except give the person a tie to an "English-speaking country" by making his mother a U.S. citizen living in the Belgian Congo. Now we have a tie that STRONGNAT would seem to want to use to force MDY, regardless of how wrong it would be for everything related to the article. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that people are tired of this subject, but I honestly do not see an answer to the question I posed above – I'm not trolling for a war. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have a very broad interpretation of "English Speaking Country". One that has never been accepted in any discussion that I am aware of.JOJ ^Hutton 18:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to amend the section and see how it looks.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You failed to get your way at Albert Einstein ([1]), and now you come here to make a change to a guideline that wasn't applicaple in order to force it to be applicable. Sounds like a bad idea. - DVdm (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's see -- what is it they say Einstein said? "If relativity turns out to be right, the Germans will say I'm a German, the Swiss will say I'm Swiss, and the French will say I'm a citizen of the world. If relativity turns out to be wrong, The French will say I'm Swiss, the Swiss will say I'm German, and the Germans will say I'm a Jew." EEng (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Right. - DVdm (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Its obvious that you want the article to continue to use DMY, despite a majority that went against you in the discussion. There just needs to be clarification in the MOS about when and when not to consider strong national tie. Thats all this discussion is addressing. An admin determined that the RFC was no consensus, but as it turns out, a previous ARBCOM, determined that in the case of a disputed date format, the format the article should revert back to the first date format used. In the case of Einstein, that is MDY. And an ARBCOM decision trumps a single admins opinion at a local discussion.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Do have a look at wp:DEADHORSE. - DVdm (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

What is your justification for your revert. Despite the fact that this discussion has been open for a while and you decided to not participate until now? You are still in the minority on this issue.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Read the replies. Lack of consensus to make that change. See wp:NOCONSENSUS, a policy. - DVdm (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTVOTE. EEng (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

But what is YOUR justification? What is wrong with making it clear that the English Wikipedia should use the date format of the English speaking countries? Why do you feel that the MOS should not make that more clear and precise?--JOJ ^Hutton 18:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

In short, read the replies, both here and at the RFC. - DVdm (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I want to hear YOUR reply about why this MOS should not make it more precise and remove the confusion. I've read your opinion on "current wording" of this MOS, but so far you have yet to give your opinion on why the MOS should not be amended so as to remove the ambiguity and create a more precisely worded guideline.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:CREEP. EEng (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The change by Jojhutton is not in accord with the guideline, because it said " strong national tie to an English speaking country takes precedent over non English speaking countries." But it isn't about taking precedent, for purposes of date format, a tie to a non-English speaking country doesn't count at all. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did struggle a bit over the wording, especially the word "precedent". But I believe that the point was that on the English Wikipedia, we should use the date format of the English speaking country that the subject has strong national ties to, over non English speaking countries. Why this isn't clear to some people, I don't know. We need to make it more clear.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've let this rattle around in the back of my head and I think I have a solution. The real issue is whether the date format matches one of the common formats used in predominantly English speaking countries and whether it uses one of the calenders used in those countries. This rules out things like ISO 8601 order (common in Asian countries), Japanese calendars (based on the reign on the current emperor), etc. In practice, it limits it to the Gregorian calendar expressed as 12 July 2014 or July 12, 2014. Minor formatting issues of whether it uses periods, commas, spaces, dashes, slashes, etc can be ignored to fit one of those two acceptable formats. For a concrete example, Germany traditionally used d.m.yyyy and this is an easy match to 12 July 2014. So I propose that we change MOS to state that strong national ties to a country that uses a date format closely matching one of 'd mmmm yyyy' or 'mmm dd, yyyy' shall be preferred. In the case of Einstein above, he realistically has two countries to be associated with: Germany using 'd mmm yyyy' and the US using 'mmm d, yyyy'. There might still be an issue over which country has has stronger ties to (his native Germany or the adopted US) but either format is otherwise acceptable and neither would be ruled out. For other people emigrating from say Japan to the US, the Japanese format would be ruled out and the US format would be used. Comments?  Stepho  talk  02:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason for using a date format popular in, for example, the United Kingdom, when writing about a person with strong ties to that country is that we anticipate that more people from the United Kingdom will be reading the article than people from other countries. In the case of an article about a German, we would expect most Germans would read German-language articles about the person, not the English Wikipedia article. There is no way to guess what variety of English the readers of the article about the German will be most comfortable with, so there is no reason to prefer one date format over another. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

No. 10 Downing Street and so on

Right now we've got

Proper names, technical terms, and the like are never altered: 5 Channel Street;   Channel 5;  Chanel No. 5;  Fourth Judicial District;   Fourth Amendment;   Fourth Estate;   Fourth Republic

-- and that's fine. But what about certain conventional situations that aren't proper names e.g.

Along the south side of X street are No. 123, where Historical Personage died, and No. 137, where Infamous Killer lured his victims.

-- ? In English usage, at least, reference to Number. 123 or No. 123 are conventional -- do we require the text to say Number 123 every time, or is No. 123 OK here?

In older American usage you see that some time, but nowadays (it is my impression) it's more common to write "at 123 was This, and at nearby 137 was That."

Anyway... thoughts on writing "No. 123"? EEng (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Bump EEng (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What's happened to all the MOS warriors?

has the fire gone out? Can't I get a peep re the above? EEng (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this will be much help, but as a Briton, I can tell you what I do myself. I personally use the numero sign, as in № 10 Downing Street. I do speak the "number" allowed. I personally would advocate for using the numero sign, as opposed to "number", which is never written out as far as I know. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the American usage of "123 Such and Such Road" started seeping in, and I've certainly heard "10 Downing Street" being used occasionally on BBC News reports in recent years, whereas they would've previously said "№ 10". RGloucester — ☎ 22:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If "No." is the common usage, I'd say keep it unaltered. For a Canadian example (though not related to a street), Leduc No. 1. Resolute 22:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• If it's the world according to MOS you seek, your answer is here: MOS:NUMBERSIGN. Oddly, it's not found or referenced on the "Manual of Style/Dates and Numbers," but on the first page of "Wikipedia:Manual of Style." I edit a lot of sports articles and the number abbreviation rules come up a lot as many sports fans want to insert the number sign symbol (#) directly into text, which is a no-no. I had to go looking for the specific MOS section, and was a little surprised to find it elsewhere than on the MOS numbers subpage. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I was aware of NUMBERSIGN though I couldn't remember where it was. Leduc No. 1 is covered under the proper names rule. I guess what I was wondering was whether the flat prohibition on No. might be relaxed in this situation where convention strongly endorses it i.e. "house numbers", such as in the examples above, for times and places where that was the convention. The weird thing is I had an actual article situation when I posed the question, but I can't even remember what it is now! I don't know... I do think this usage should be allowed. Anyone want to propose text? EEng (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:DATED

...gives the example "Humans diverged from apes long ago, but only recently developed fire." One plausible theory is that cooking developed first, then homo erectus and eventually humans. See Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. There must be a better analogy. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I changed the example to Humans diverged from apes long ago, but only recently developed state legislatures. EEng (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Good one. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, though there's evidence that legislatures developed first, before man split from apes. EEng (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

We didn't split from apes. We are apes. We split from chimp/bonobos. Jimp 03:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, smartypants. Please fix the example. ("Diverged from other apes"?) EEng (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Fractions vs decimals in imperial units

Many moons ago I wrote articles converting cm to inches with fractions - such as in Banksia ericifolia - and felt more comfortable doing this. Somewhere along the way I passively and not unhappily went along with using decimals of inches, such as in current FAC Epacris impressa. Someone else has stated they prefer the fractions. I can't see anything in MOS or MOS archives about this...has this been discussed before and do we have a consensus? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The "moons" is not a MOS-conpliant chronological unit, so you'll need to repost before we can start arguing about this.

For years, a strict reading of MOSNUM did not allow any standard time measurement longer than a day, so think yourself lucky. Kahastok talk 21:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have information on that, but have some observations. Banksia ericifolia has:

9–20 mm (⅓–¾ in)

MOS:FRAC says to use {{frac}}:

9–20 mm (1⁄3–3⁄4 in)

Ideally {{convert}} should be used so future editors don't have to wonder if the conversions are correct or have been changed. However, convert can only handle one value of fraction in the output, although it will reduce the fraction if appropriate:

• {{convert|9-20|mm|abbr=on}} → 9–20 mm (0.35–0.79 in) (this line is to show the values)
• {{convert|9-20|mm|abbr=on|frac=4}} → 9–20 mm (1⁄4–3⁄4 in)
• {{convert|9-20|mm|abbr=on|frac=8}} → 9–20 mm (3⁄8–3⁄4 in)

A problem with fractions is that they are pretty crude as far as conveying information regarding precision, although for this context precision is not appropriate. I find going from 1⁄3 to 3⁄4 to require too much mental effort—it's hard to compare the values. Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Defending the fractional way of life against creeping decimalization

The benefit of fractions with imperial units is that the units themselves are not decimally-based, so the subdivisions are very often give awkward decimals. 4.1 feet is not a nice number of inches. 5.2 pounds is not a convenient number of ounces. But in those situations the best solution is to use the subdivision explicitly (e.g. 4 ft 2 in).

As to divisions of units like inches, ounces, that don't have a standard subdivisions, fractions are probably more traditional and decimals may look wrong to some - but may be clearer to others. Personally, I don't have a strong preference either way. Kahastok talk 21:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• If you read WP:UNIT, you'll see that mixed units are preferred for the imperial system. Fractions should be used, as the system is not a decimal system. Mixed units, like "5ft 2in", should be preferred. In instances where there is no commonly used smaller unit, like with the ounce, use fractions. Imperial units don't make sense, frankly, when put into decimals. That's not how they were meant to be used. RGloucester — ☎ 22:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about all cases of this question, but if the inches (as in the example) are a parenthetical conversion from a measurement given in the source in decimal (obviously) millimeters, then I think the inches should be in decimal as well. I certainly see decimal inches in some engineering contexts (though sometimes they're obviously modernizations of fractions, as e.g. a 1.125-inch bolt) and for the scientific context of the OP that seems right too. But I don't have this clearly thought out. EEng (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Are we using : or * for each comment? It started out as colons.

Some readers like imperial measurements and these readers nearly always think fractions are quite natural. Other readers prefer metric measurements and these readers nearly always prefer decimals. I don't come across many people who like imperial measurements with decimals and I don't come across many people who like metric measurements with fractions. Also, when we use a measurement on WP we should make it agree with the source reference. Some fractions like ⁠9+1/2⁠ can easily be converted to a decimal like 9.5 but some like ⁠9+1/3⁠ either lose precision by converting to a shortened decimal like 9.3 or gain unwarranted precision as 9.3333333333333 (typically measured with a tool that is accurate to only a few decimal places). Luckily we {{convert}} which is happy to deal with imperial fractions and decimal metric units. Readers who have trouble with imperial fractions can just ignore them and look at the decimal metric units. Similarly, readers who never quite made the transition to metric can ignore the metric units and just read the familiar imperial fractions. Both sides are happy and can ignore the other side.  Stepho  talk  01:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Peaceful coexistence is for pussies. There should be a fight to submission, so that one approach becomes the glorified master and the other the despised slave. EEng (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I've been spending time at Did You Know, where for some reason they all use * on everything. I'm afraid I've become infected.

Kilowatt-hour

• This is prompted by a discussion at Template talk:Convert#Kilowatt-hour.

{{convert}} provides two units for kilowatt-hour; one is for "common usage", while the other outputs the correct middle dot per WP:UNIT. Examples:

• {{convert|123|kWh|abbr=on}} → 123 kWh (440 MJ)
• {{convert|123|kW.h|abbr=on}} → 123 kW⋅h (440 MJ)

Kilowatt hour asserts 'The symbol "kWh" is most commonly used in commercial, educational, scientific and media publications'—including "scientific" might be overdoing it, but the others are correct in my experience. Given that kWh is commonly used, what should be the output from convert? Should the above example using kWh give the same output as kW.h? Or should it be up to the editor to decide which to use?

The only discussion I can find is at 2008 MOSNUM. In May 2014 there were 61 converts using kWh in 36 articles, and none using kW.h. I prefer that convert gives the editor the choice of how the output should appear, and I support the principle that Wikipedia should follow real life rather than lead it. However, if a strong consensus wants the middle dot, that's fine too. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just noticed that several energy units have been carefully designed to allow the editor to either insert a middot or not.

No middot: µWh mWh Wh kWh MWh GWh TWh

With middot: µW.h mW.h W.h kW.h MW.h GW.h TW.h

I wonder if Jimp would like to explain the history. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Just to echo here my arguments from the preceding discussion: consistency (among units and with standards) is more important; the claim about "real-life" usage has not been supported by studies.
  And, in fact, my point was that conversion to kilowatt-hours ({{convert|123|MJ|abbr=on}}) should produce "kW·h" instead of "kWh". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Re {{convert|123|MJ|abbr=on}}: That's just a matter of specifying the output unit (|kW.h), or changing the default output unit for MJ and friends. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The default output should be according to MOS (with "·"). I doubt that the dot-less output is needed (that is, I think that both "xWh" and "xW.h" parameters should produce "xW·h"). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Another thought is that some people actually misunderstand "kWh" as "kilowatt per hour" (similarly to "psi", which is "pound per square inch"), whereas with "kW·h" the meaning is clear. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Those people do not even know what the dot means. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• kWh is by far the most common usage (even in scientific papers), so it should remain the default. The concatenated unit has the same meaning as the dotted unit anyway; they both represent a factored unit. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No! For example, "m·s" means "meter-second", but "ms" means "millisecond". Please read WP:UNITS, the standards and the previous discussions. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • "ms" is not a concatenation but a prefix. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Both kW h and kW·h are correct symbols for kilowatt hour. By contrast, kWh, while sometimes used as an abbreviation, is not a correct symbol. MOSNUM should promulgate correct use (kW h or kW·h). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Statements such as "KWh is not a correct symbol" misunderstand what we're doing here. kWh is not a formal scientific symbol, but like it or not it's the long-established convention, in authoritative sources, for topics such as e.g. Electric energy consumption, and articles on those topics should (even must) follow that usage. Thus convert and other templates must offer kWh as an option, along with the other two -- purists who happen to be tinkering with the template must not impose their views on what should be, instead of what is (in reliable sources, that is). EEng (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. Wikipedia does not "promulgate" any usage, correct or incorrect; it strives to reflect the usage of reliable sources, giving preference to the best sources in any given topic area.
  • I did not mention Wikipedia. Only MOSNUM. Surely the purpose of MOSNUM is to promulgate a uniform practice throughout Wikipedia? If not that, what else? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I misunderstood you -- thought you meant WP "promulgating" to the wider world, as in trying to set a good example of ideal usage. I see now you mean MOS setting an example/giving guidance to WP editors. Yes, that's what MOS is for, but again, what MOS promulgates is what's used in reliable sources, and that varies from field to field. So, as mentioned, while in a physics papers you'd see kW{{middot}h or kW h, in a discussion of consumer energy conservation you'd see kWh. EEng (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I have also seen KWH used on utility bills. I'm not sure I have ever seen any extra characters added. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"KWH" in bills is probably a dark legacy of ancient printers that did not have any glyphs except numbers ans capital letters. :–) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Above it is asserted that many scientific publications use kWh. I can't say I read any scientific publications devoted to electric power generation and distribution. However, the IEEE has several publications devoted to this area including IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, and IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. The IEEE provides "Preparation of Papers for IEEE TRANSACTIONS and JOURNALS" (April 2013). That publication on page 2 states "Use the center dot to separate compound units, e.g., 'A·m2.'" I suggest this indicates that one of the largest scientific publishers in this field has chosen middle dots, therefore, if WP:MOS does the same, it is not pushing a novel or marginally accepted practice. I would like to see WP:MOS continue to recommend the choices recognized in official standards, that is, the middle dot or the space. Of course, articles should follow WP:MOS except when WP:IAR applies. I take the comment by Dondervogel 2 at 15:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC) to mean that Wikipedia articles should not contain statements that widely used language is incorrect, but that does not mean that Wikipedia articles should use such language if it does not conform to the language used in the best sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You're wasting your time arguing whether kWh is or isn't used in scientific papers. It clearly is in sources such as discussions of consumer energy consumption, national energy policy, etc., and articles on those topics will therefore use it. Speaking of IEEE, here for example is IEEE's own "Smart Grid Forum" [2] -- a bit bloggish, but still clearly IEEE-sponsored (and IEEE is very careful about its publishing standards) using -- ta ha! -- kWh with no dot and not space. You're focused on standards for the highest-level, most formal journals, and that isn't appropriate for all articles.

If the question on the table is, What should the convert template to, the answer is that it must off dot, space, and no-dot-no-space as output options. If the question is, what should articles use, I think we should leave that to editors of individual articles. If and when it appears that there's a recurring issue that wastes editors' time, that would be the time to think about adding something to MOS. EEng (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The piece cited by EEng as an example fails. Doug Houseman or his copy editor can't even get the capitalization of units and symbols right. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the question is whether MOSNUM should promulgate good practice or common practice. In my opinion it is good practice that should prevail. I see a clear parallel with Mbps vs Mbit/s, where the latter is recommended by MOSNUM because it is the internationally agreed symbol, and therefore unambiguous. The same logic applies here. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not a very good parallel because there is no division in kWh. No-one who understands basic algebra would insert a division there would they? I've never seen it with a centre dot here in the UK. Even the article that we cite in our Kilowatt hour article as evidence of confusion uses kWh without a dot or space. Dbfirs 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There are many instances of less-than-ideal usage which are not bad enough to create confusion, such as irregardless or "I could care less." That's no reason to encourage such less-than-ideal usage. There is also the danger that someone who is familiar with the meaning of "kWh" but not familiar with some other compound unit symbol may use "kWh" as an exemplar to decide how to (incorrectly) construct the symbol for the other unit. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Crikey, will you get a clue? OK, tell me that the Lawrence Berkeley Lab is sloppy and unreliable as well [3] This is as hopeless a quest as were earlier attempts to get mpg in articles about automobiles changed to miles/gallon. Forget it. You're wasting everyone's time. EEng (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I can tell you that people at LBNL are not better than in other places, and thus it is not surprising that the draft that you refer to is not something to rely upon (besides "kWh", it is typographically disgusting in many respects). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You're wasting yours and everyone else's time EEng (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, "psi" and "scfm" have an invisible division in them. :–) As I pointed above, the kilowatt-hour article even mentions the "kilowatt per hour" confusion explicitly, so this problem is not so illusory. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 10:50 pm, Today (UTC−4)

"kWh" is the only way I have ever seen it in the electric utility industry or in news articles. The pattern is the same with Wh, MWh, GWh, and TWh, not to mention similar units like kVA and MVA. I am unable to recall the last time I have seen "kW h" or "kW·h" in a utility industry communication or in a news article; I suspect that I may never have seen the units written that way, in many thousands of occurrences. Call it original research if you like, but you would be hard-pressed to show even a tiny minority of sources using anything other than "kWh". Offering the dotted option in the convert template is a kindness to pedantic editors and wikiprojects that dictate a specific style for units, but widespread use of the dotted option on Wikipedia would be contrary to the vast majority of real-world usage. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Jonesey above, with most of my work in energy-related projects, "kWh" is near universal, and even "kW-hr" will have wider usage than "kW(dot)h". Our article on the unit of "kilowatt-hours" can explain the proper units, but for any other case, we should be using the most recognized units. --MASEM (t) 03:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that "communications or news articles" are oriented on plain-text typesetting, and they used to be authored on regular typewriters that simply lacked the interpunct symbol. For the same reason there are no equations, for example. Here we don't have such technical limitations, so why not to follow the standards? Especially, since this would be totally free: just type {{convert|...}} and get the perfect results! — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not listening. Different topic areas use different symbols. One of them is kWh. Stop wasting everyone's time. EEng (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng, I was replying to Jonesey95. Please do not change the indent level of other users' comments. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Mikhail, I'm replying to you. Stop wasting everyone's time. EEng (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the history of why when the unit was added to {{convert}} the option of the dotless abbreviation was given, I don't completely remember the specifics (it was almost seven years ago) but this must have been before MOSNUM had anything to say about it and given that "kWh" is so common I guess including it must just have made sense. If I were adding the unit to the template now, though, I'd probably comply with MOSNUM and wouldn't give the dotless option. So, do we fix the template or the guideline? My preference would be for uniformity as opposed to making an ad hoc exception for watt-hours. There are plenty of abbreviations in use out there that we don't allow. If we were to take an anything-goes approach, why have a MOS at all? Jimp 14:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

By including kWh as an option we are complying with MOS, because what MOS says is Unit names and symbols should follow the practice of reliable sources, and as abundantly demonstrated above, in some subject areas RSs use kWh. I point out that MOS' guidance "Indicate a product of unit symbols with & middot; or & nbsp;" is part of a table headed "General guidelines", not "Rigid restrictions". So far this debate has gone on at the convert template's talk page, and here on MOS, but -- tellingly -- AFAIK not in the context of any actual articles. This is a solution in search of a problem. In fact, to put an end to this I make the following proposal:

Regardless of the niche usages of the "kWh" notation, conversion from MJ to kW·h implies that the main units in the particular article are the SI units, so the result of the conversion should also be formatted according to the SI rules. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 10:33 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Proposal

Add to WP:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Specific_units, in the Energy section, a new row as follows: kilowatt-hour ... kWh / MWh / GWh ... Where reliable sources in a given subject area (such as energy supply and consumption) do so, the symbols kWh, MWh, GWh (with no space) are used in place of (for example) the formal kW h (i.e. with space) or kW·h.

• Support. EEng (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support, suggest to also add MWh and GWh (but no others) as common usage when you start talking power plants. Other magnitudes of "watt hours" typically are otherwise not used frequently enough to require this. (I rearely see TWh used, usually that gets spelled out better, for example) --MASEM (t) 16:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Added MWh and GWh to the proposal. I left it intentionally ambiguous as to Wh since, really, it's use in RS that controls, so just let editors figure that out if it comes up somewhere. EEng (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I wanted to make sure it was clear it was only to their specific decimations of the Watt-hour unit. I could see someone trying to argue mWr (milliwatt-hr) as the "right" unit display, though at that magnitude, the units typically switch over to joules. The three listed as explicitly the only prefix-ified versions of "watt-hour" that would be acceptable due to their common usage). --MASEM (t) 00:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

So you're OK with the wording? EEng (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose because the proper symbol will not confuse those familiar with the proper way of writing metric units, but the incorrect symbol may very well confuse those who are just learning to write metric symbols correctly. Also "kW-h" is wrong. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC), sentence struck in response to change in proposal at 18:30 UT.

• It's not wrong. It's not consistent with how other units typically are written, no question, but its an artifact of how the energy/power industry worldwide use the symbols. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed hyphen to middot. Jc's reasoning would be an argument for changing mpg to miles per gallon in articles on cars, and converting all articles to American English. Wikipedia follows reliable sources in whatever subject area is being treated. EEng (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the same reason as Jc3s5h, and because in the absence of a good reason not to, it makes sense for MOSNUM to follow international standards. Precisely the same reasoning as for nmi (nautical mile), kn (knot) and bit/s (bit per second). If you follow widespread use why doesn't MOSNUM advocate use of nm, kt and bps for those units. I am not aware of an internationally agreed symbol for mpg, which makes it a poor counter-example. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for knots and so on, but the reason bps is a no-no is that its a well-known source of confusion because of its bits-bytes ambiguity. Your fetishizing of "international standards" is a red herring. We follow the sources in each topic area, not "international standards" (unless that's what the sources follow).

Tell you what. Why don't you go change all the uses of kWh at Electricity meter, Emission standard, Energy density , Cost of electricity by source , Feed-in tariff , Financial incentives for photovoltaics , Feed-in tariffs in Germany , Energy in the United States , Solar power, Solar power in Massachusetts and see the reaction. Then come back and let us know. EEng (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I did do that once. For kilotonnes (kt) and nanometers (nm) I mean. Before I learnt of the existence of mosnum, I changed them one by one to knots (kn) and nautical miles (nmi). I encountered lots of resistance of the kind you anticipate, from editors who preferred kilotonnes and nanometres. International standards are sources in their own right, of a kind, and the most reliable sources follow them. When I discovered mosnum I found an easier way. Make a good case here, and others will follow. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You did that once for some other units, but not for kWh. You can't keep saying that "the most reliable" sources use certain terms when we've clearly shown that there are perfectly good sources that use a different term. Here are more: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Now go start a discussion at Cost of electricity by source -- see what kind of laugh you get. EEng (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The place to make the case is not in individual articles, but here in mosnum. And that is what I am doing. I agree that use of kW h is rare (which just means that reliable sources are rare), but I see no advantage in departing from a perfectly simple multiplication rule that is easy to explain and easy to understand. Use of the correct symbol would also make it easier to understand that kW h is a product of kilowatt and hour. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Now you're showing that you really have the wrong end of the stick. Ultimately these decisions are made on a case-by-case basis in articles -- that's why MOS is a guideline. And we don't add a new "rule" to MOS unless it's clear that editors in individual articles are wasting time rehashing the same old issues. What's being proposed here isn't a rule but an "anti-rule", reaffirming, specifically in the case of kilowatt-hours, that editors of each article should follow the notation of RS in that topic area. EEng (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You are entitled to your view. I am entitled to mine. Can we agree to disagree? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That would have a much more appealing ring to it if you weren't advocating dictating, to editors of articles you have no interest in, that they write those articles in a certain way that serves your sense of symmetry and order, even when the sources in the topic area do it another way. EEng (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

First, MOSNUM is a guideline - editors can choose to follow that guideline or not; second it is not my sense of symmetry that matters here, but the consensus of editors on MOSNUM. It seems we cannot agree even to disagree :P Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No, in general editors are expected to follow MOS, though MOS itself allows for "occasional exceptions" in accord with "common sense". I agree your sense of symmetry doesn't matter here -- I didn't say it did. EEng (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"use of kW h is rare" because the vast majority of reliable sources do not use it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• "dpi" is another example like mpg, then, we don't use "dots/inch". --MASEM (t) 18:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. as it supports common usage, whatever the rights or wrongs most reader would think that any other form is a mistake. MilborneOne (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. spare us from ugly unneeded dots.Constant314 (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and dots aren't recyclable and are a major cause of climate change. EEng (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. If you really want to use the non-standard notation, at least change the wording from the prescriptive "are used in place of" to a permissive "can be used". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You're still confused. The standard notation is whatever is standard in the topic area a given article treats -- you want one particular source to be the "standard" for everything. What the proposal says is

Where reliable sources in a given subject area do so, the symbols kWh, MWh, GWh are used ...

And the reason it says that is MOSNUM's general provision that Unit names and symbols should follow the practice of reliable sources. We follow the practice of sources in the topic area. EEng (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Kilowatt is a SI unit, hour is accepted for use with the SI, so the appearance of "kW·h" is governed by the SI standards. If you can find a different "standard in the topic area", we can consider it to be more important, otherwise — rely on SI. The argument of "practice" is flawed, since it does not tell what to do if different "reliable" sources use different notation ("kWh", "KWH", "kW·h", "kW-hr", whatever)? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 10:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)

[With what I hope will be the permission of my esteemed fellow editors, the following has been converted to a comment from a (pseudo-)subsection so as not to confuse where further comments/supports/opposes should go -- EEng (talk)]

• Comment EEng has diverted this discussion from the topic on the {{convert}} template to advocating the "alternative" notation in MOS. I suggest splitting his/her "proposal" into a separate topic and continuing here the original thread (which is related to conversion between different units, not to a particular unit itself). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

oh oh ... Mikhail, Ohconfucius appears to have removed this because it may impute wrongdoing to EEng without much evidence of it (as far as I can see). You've reverted it back in. Well, you're entitled to do that, but does it assist calm, clear debate? Please assume good faith, and remember that this page is subject to DS. Best. Tony (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Changing MOSNUM is a legitimate question on its own, but it is not directly related to the {{convert}} questions. I believe, separating these two topics will promote clearer debates (for example, where people are supposed to put their comments about the original topic now?). I do not know how to do this split correctly, so I asked for the help from more experienced users. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten that this is the MOS talk page. So we're having a MOS discussion. EEng (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support original proposal. The MOS is not a voluntary set of guidelines; it's a style manual. Editors can follow it or not as they choose when creating text but must not undo changes made later to ensure consistency with the MOS. So MOSNUM should explicitly say that the commonly used forms like "kWh" are permitted. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for consistency and simplicity. We don't have to follow whatever we see out there. Jimp 11:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we do, as the next two Supports explain. It's only when there's a conflict between sources of comparable authoritativeness (in the field) that we make a choice of our own. EEng (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - The first bullet point of the MOS says, "Unit names and symbols should follow the practice of reliable sources." The proposal is simply codifying this. There are few sources that use the delicately punctuated versions. There is no significant ambiguity with the proposed symbols. ~KvnG 14:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Delicately punctuated" is certainly the right phrase. EEng (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Peter coxhead. It's a bit like MB and MiB: it makes no sense to have more than one ways of expressing kWh – the other different forms are hardly ever used in RL, and may confuse readers. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the proposal doesn't mandate using kWh (no space, no dot) exclusively, since I'm sure there are e.g. physics contexts in which space or dot is used. Rather, the proposal makes it clear that kWh is an acceptable choice, when it's what sources in the field use. EEng (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I would like to see scientific references which use "kW·h" or "kW h", especially since the SI unit would be 3.6 MJ. I would think, in fact, that kWh should be the lead abbreviation in kilowatt hour, per actual use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per common use, no we don't have to follow whatever we see in real life but we are writing an encyclopedia to be readily understood by as many of our readers as possible. Given that the majority of sources use it and most of our readers would be familiar with it is precisely why we should be using it. We should never use an abstract, unfamiliar form. WCM_email 22:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)