Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Proposal to add DATEBOTH to MOS:DATEFORMAT

Debate over DMY vs. MDY date formats, the precedence and proper application of MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATERET, and whether certain articles have stronger ties as "U.S.-military" or "U.S.-national" (non-military), has been interminable and of little benefit. As there seems to be an emerging consensus that both formats are acceptable (in that both are readily understandable to all readers), I propose the following addition at the top of MOS:DATEFORMAT:

Both "DMY" (day, month, year) and "MDY" (month, day, year) formats are deemed understandable to all readers of Wikipedia, and therefore either format may be used, subject to consistency within each article, the consensus of the editors involved, and any other applicable considerations (below).

This change implicitly rejects the view of an inherent and pre-determined format for certain topics, leaving the choice of format to the judgment of the editors involved. Where editors are unable to reach consensus the usual guidelines are applicable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, I hate to do this to you, but I just don't see what you're trying to accomplish with this. While everything in MOS has potential exceptions, via editor consensus for a particular article -- see the box at the head of every MOS page -- this turns it around and makes a discussion among editors primary for each article, using the "usual guidelines" only as a tiebreaker. I see that as a recipe for disaster. I think STRONGNAT and DATERET have served us well up until now. I thought the special US military exception was out of place and came to believe it should be removed, but what you're proposing will upset the entire applecart, I fear. But I'd like to hear what others think. EEng (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Are STRONGNAT and DATERET half full, or half empty? I grant they have been of some good service. But surely it is not necessary (per WP:BLUE) to enumerate all of the bickering about which format is innately better, or whether some topic or person is more "national" or more "military", or the arguments over guideline precedence, or where editors not involved in an article come in and unilaterally make mass changes on the sole basis of (e.g.) "per DATETIES". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

As it is these several guidelines are a frequently conflicting patchwork which fosters bickering. My hope and intent is find a clearer, simpler formulation that reduces the points of conflict. And without "upset[ing] the entire applecart", a fear apparently arising from concern that any adjustment of the guidelines would trigger an onslaught of mass changes by "format warriors". (See previous discussion at #Military dates, round 2.) I think this would occur only if such adjustments were interpreted as a mandate for change, which is disputable irregardless of this proposal. At any rate, I reiterate my suggestion of no wholesale changes without consensus.

Which gets back to "discussion among editors primary for each article". This is, after all, our fundamental model for editorial decision-making, so why shouldn't we let those closest to an article determine what is most appropriate? Why should they be shackled to a guideline on what is really a trivial matter? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

That's basically a rationale for having no MOS at all. I don't mean to make a bullshitty, hyperbolic reductio ad absurdum here at all. With the possible exception of a few matters required for technical and accessibility reasons, and a few more for policy-compliance, all other rules on all MOS pages could be scrapped with such a rationale. But clearly the community wants us to have style guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hell no. I deem the pushing of this idea which has been repeatedly rejected as a strong indication there are plans afoot to abuse this addition. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, please, please, no accusations. It doesn't help. Can you please strike that bit?

J. Johnson, don't respond. EEng (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Aye aye. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

At ease. EEng (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

J Johnson, are you really proposing that US-related articles can be written in BrEng, and vice versa? Tony (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

In a narrow sense, no, because we are discussing only date format. However, if we take your meaning as "US-related articles can be written in DMY format", then the implication is yes, they could. But what I actually propose is only that neither format is inherently wrong, and deciding on which is primarily a matter for the editors involved. Note that just because an article can be formatted a certain way does mean it will be. If the local editors chose to do so I would not unilaterally revert without looking into the matter. This is unlikely where there is a truly strong national tie (such as Civil War (US)). More likely is where the ties are weak or conflicting. E.g., Transatlantic telegraph cable uses MDY dates, although no part of it crosses U.S. territory. Should I presume to "fix" that? I don't think so. Likewise for Audie Murphy and James Stewart. So let's not sweat letting ordinary editors make that choice. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

So is there anyone who would take issue with the proposition that both DMY and MDY date formats are understandable to all readers of Wikipedia? And (aside from any issue of changing date format) does anyone care to maintain that there is any problem of understandability in the consistent use of either format in any topic? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

From the lack of expressed objections regarding the understandability of either date format it is a fair presumption that we have consensus on this point in that everyone either agrees or is indifferent. Is there also consensus that (subject to consistency and consensus, and again leaving aside any issue of changing date formats) either format is therefore acceptable in any article on any topic? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Creating a new article that uses a date format that does not follow the guideline is an error. Errors are not acceptable. The guideline specifies certain articles that should have certain date formats. When an editor creates a new article that fails to follow the guideline the editor has made an unacceptable error. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

We seem to have a disconnect here. You are saying that the criterion for acceptability is "the guideline". (Which has multiple parts and variable interpretation.) Well, that is essentially we currently have. What I am arguing is that neither format is inherently "wrong", and therefore we can and should let the editors involved decide what is acceptable. (If they can't, then arbitrary guidelines such as we have can be applied.)

Your characterization of non-compliance with the MOS guidelines as "an unacceptable error" is unsupported and overreaching. MOS:NUM does show a number of unacceptable formats, but these are specific errors not touching on the use of DMY vs. MDY. And if you will check the cited sources for the first footnote in MOS:NUM (following "revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.^[1]) you might note Arbcom statments such as "[t]he prescriptions of Wikipedia's manual of style are not binding", and that the MOS "is not policy and editors may deviate from it with good reason".

Yet your characterization is useful, as it does illustrate a basic problem with the current situation: by framing any perceived non-compliance as "an unacceptable error" - and therefore something that any editor should be able to correct on sight - you are creating we get the very situation that has been plaguing us, where editors feel free to make mass changes unilaterally and without discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal is a recipe for disruption, and ignores the hard-fought battles of the past right here. The archives stand open for your reading pleasure. Saying that one format is as good as another may be true in a broad sense, but one might say the same of British English and American English. Nobody is going to be confused if "colour" is spelt without the "u", but if we allow open slather on all articles, we will get back to the situation of ten years ago or more.

Sneering at guidelines because they don't fit your own strongly-held opinions is not helpful. We have guidelines to help us work together, not to facilitate warfare between obsessives. --Pete (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You're just waving around your format warrior bogeyman again. I repeat my comment from the last time we visited this issue (at "Proposal for DATETIES on US military topics", 22:00, 22 June): Your comments show only a fear that any alteration of the status quo will unleash "format warriors" on a "Mission from God", and amount to little more than an emotional form of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT that impairs any objective discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Nah, it's institutional memory. MOS has evolved to be as detailed and specific as it is because the style wars are real and are only kept at bay by nailing down what people keep squabbling over. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is all fine and dandy when consensus is actually reachable. When it turns into an endless river of recycled pissing matches, a site-wide settlement is called for, gets implemented, and 9 times out of 10 that's the end of. What you're complaining about is called a slippery slope argument. It's instructive to read that article. While an SS argument is sometimes a fallacy ("We can't let women wear pants or vote! It will lead to moral turpitude and a degeneration of family values!"), in many other cases, SS arguments are perfectly valid. They are most commonly spot-on in legal and other "regulatory" matters (like a style guide), when a particular rule is instituted to prevent things from continuing to slip down an already observed slope.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish: I think you mis-take my basic premise, which is exactly as you said: "WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is all fine and dandy when consensus is actually reachable." Where consensus is lacking, I am all for "tie-breaking" rules, even if they are arbitrary. What I am against is where there is local consensus, but some outside editor, never before seen on that article, uses MOSNUM to unilaterally change formats contrary to that consensus. Note that in the case discussed below (#User converting date formats in complete articles) both of the opposing edits claimed "date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT" (see here). That there is no style war on that article cannot be attributed to DATEFORMAT, as it is applied contradictorily. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This is un-wiki, though: "some outside editor, never before seen on that article". There is no such thing as an "outside editor", there are no WP:VESTED editors at any page with more editorial rights than newer arrivals^[*], and there is no WP:OWNership of pages by a wikiproject or other group of editors who would like to control a page. You and I and the next editor have 100% identical editorial rights to every page on the system (absent topic bans, ArbCom-only pages, and a few other odd-ball exceptions). Every Wikipedian is an inside editor as soon as they start editing somewhere. Where theres' a pre-established consensus at a page, and someone wants to change it, this usually means further discussion happens (often brief, if the rationale presented isn't new or isn't compelling). Maybe I'm missing something, but if DATEFORMAT is being cited for two different rationales that are cognizant under it, a consensus discussion will sort it out. If two parties are citing it and one is misinterpreting it, that will sort out too. This is a discussion-and-revision-based proejct. Avoiding the terrible annoyance of having to ever re-examine a decision once made, by imposing rules against change by "outsiders", isn't part of how WP works.  :-)
^[*] The only quasi-exception is the "first major contributor" criterion of ENGVAR and DATEVAR; but it doesn't give the FMC more rights, it just says "look at what the FMC did, as an arbitrary cut off point, and stick with that, absent a convincing reason not to"; consensus can overturn the FMC any time. It could just as easily have been "first contribution after the second day" or "first contribution" or "exactly 18th contribution".

The reason this "outside editor" stuff raises my hackles so much (and I encounter this sentiment around 2–5 times per week in one debate or another) is that a large number of very productive Wikipedians mostly edit rather random articles (cleaning up categories of tagged articles, going down a list of RfCs, or whatever), and because they're generally applying site-wide standards that reflect a broad consensus, but are encountering "specialized-style" quirks inserted by people who often know a tremendous amount about some topic but very little about how to write an encyclopedia, more often than not it's the "outsider" to the topic (i.e., the Wikipedia insider) who is actually doing the right thing. The idea that the most valuable editors are those who focus on writing an article from the start and shepherding/controlling it all the way to FA is faulty; the best articles are produced when editorial input is broad, and not micro-managed by people too close to the topic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

An interesting comment, and a point I think worth some discussion. But perhaps a bit of a tangent to the discussion here. Could we explore this further at, say, your Talk page?

As to the key point here: do you still stand-by your statement that "WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is all fine and dandy when consensus is actually reachable"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

1) Sure. I'll open that thread now. 2) Depends on what you mean, and whether you know what I meant; I'm highly suspicious of (often accidental) fallacy of equivocation with questions like that. The problem is that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is used to mean two different things, one positive and one negative; I almost always use it in the negative sense and use WP:CONLEVEL for the positive one, so I was being inconsistent here. It's fine for topical microconsensuses to resolve issues, when they really do so, when they don't conflict with site-wide consensus, and when they don't confuse readers. More at User talk:SMcCandlish#MOS, CONLEVEL and "centralization".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Oppose The statement that "both formats are readily understandable to all readers" is not verifiable. It certainly isn't the case for readers under the age of fifteen or even twenty and I would need to see empirical evidence stating that everyone over those ages understands the differences. The edit warring over the formats of last decade were a drain on the project. I still find articles about US subjects that have this template {{Use dmy dates}} added by editors that thought the UK formatting was the only one to use. I agree with Pete's statement above that there is no reason to return to a situation that facilitates edit warring. MarnetteD|Talk 23:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

As to verifiability: so what? It cannot be verified that every human being ever born had a belly-button, but would you seriously assert the contrary? Same here: do you assert that either MDY or DMY are not readily understandable? Can you show any instance of someone who understands "July 6, 2015" but does not understand "6 July 2015"?

This proposal does not return to any situation. It is an attempt to remove a basic cause of edit warring, where lone-wolf editors use an ambiguous guideline to "correct" an established usage. It addresses the same deficiencies in the current wording previously identified by sroc (14:42, 9 June). And it is in accord with Pete's prior comment (22:53, 24 June) that "any debate over what format needs to be used for a particular article, it should be resolved on that article's talk page". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no doubt that DMY is widely used in the US, but MDY is not widely used everywhere else. However the cognitive dissonance produced by seeing MDY dates for those not used to it is as nothing compared to the disruption risked by changing the rules without very broad consensus. People bear grudges for many years over this sort of thing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC).

Indeed. While I suspect there is an emergent consensus that both date formats are acceptable, it is hard to tell when every attempt at rational, objective-based discussion keeps getting singed by lingering emotionalism. It is even harder when editors with fears (which I allow as valid points to consider) are not honest about them, and try to cloak them in arguments of dubious validity. This may be a long effort, but we will never get anywhere if we don't start somewhere. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify. JJ seems to have assigned completely the wrong meaning to a previous comment. I'm in favour of keeping the guidelines on date formats as they are. Where there is occasional doubt over whether a particular article has strong national ties to a particular nation, or whether an article is primarily about the modern US military, then that should be resolved by consensus-finding on the talk page. Not for every single article! Geez. --Pete (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Pete, I took the plain and literal meaning of your words. You said any debate on date format "should be resolved on that article's talk page", without any expressed qualification of what kind of debate. (It's hardly my fault if your words don't carry the meaning you wanted.) And of course we do not apply any of this to "every single article". Only to the ones where there is some doubt of which format should be used. Where there is no doubt the editors involved are presumably in consensus, right? If this differs from your view you should look for some unstated assumptions or qualifications. As to resolving such matters "by consensus-finding on the talk page", that is exactly what is proposed here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Glad to be able to clear up your misunderstanding. Thanks for bringing it up. On looking at my earlier comment it is clear that I rejected your inelegant solution to the comparatively minor problem of working out which date format should be used in BLPs relating to ex-US servicemen such as Lee Harvey Oswald or Audie Murphy. Sorry that you took it to have a universal rather than a particular meaning. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You have cleared up nothing, and on your steaming pile of misunderstanding you heap even more: where you state "I rejected your inelegant solution" your link is to discussion of sroc's proposal (#Proposal for DATETIES on US military topics). My proposal is that what you thought good in a particular context should be good universally. (You have something against that?) And my proposal avoids the "inelegant" wording you criticized in sroc's proposal. BTW, I once again remind you that your continuing pattern of snide remarks is uncivil. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Charming. Well, if it's plain speaking you want, let me be plain. Your proposal sucks. There are some "edge cases" where it is best for editors to form a local consensus on matters of style and format where MoS is imprecise or flexible. To expand that to every single article is ludicrous. It goes against the decade of coöperative effort which has gone into the MoS, and indeed the whole body of procedures and guidelines which has enabled us to make Wikipedia what it is today. We have built something marvelous, and it is folly to cast aside what has taken so much time and effort to create and refine. I commend to you the remarks of our fellow editors in their responses to your proposal. Set aside some time to read what they have written and consider their thoughts and reasoning. --Pete (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

So your view is that the MOS is perfect, and any changes will not just unleash all those format warriors on a Mission from God, but will cause the whole body of WP procedures and guidelines to collapse. This is just more of your over-reactive hysteria, of bogeyman writ large. And you verge back to a strawman argument, as I have in no way proposed to "cast aside what has taken so much time and effort to create and refine"; that is just your over-active imagination. Another strawman argument: your opposition to applying consensus to "every single article", as I have not proposed that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are wrong in your assumptions. I reject your proposal. As does every other editor here who has offered an opinion. --Pete (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You keep asserting that I am wrong, but you have yet to demonstrate that. (And I think I have credibly shown where you are wrong.) So if you are done with arguing about things I have neither proposed nor said, sure, let's examine my assumptions. My key assumption is that both MDY and DMY formats are readily understandable to all readers. MarnetteD opposes this proposal on the basis that this assumption is not verifiable (23:13, 6 July). To which I say: so what? In the face of wide-spread usage of both formats, and an utter lack of any evidence of a problem of understandability, it is more reasonable to assume there is no such problem. On the other hand, if that is wrong - if there is, in fact, any significant problem of understandability - then it should easy to rebut this assumption by citing evidence of that problem. This has not been done, not by MarnetteD, nor by anyone else. If my assumption is wrong, show it. Until then you are just blowing smoke. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no "widespread" usage of DMY in the US. Banks, businesses, newspapers, TV schedules, sports schedules and on and on use MDY. To claim otherwise shows a lack of research at the very least. MarnetteD|Talk 22:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Two points mentioned at WP:CONLIMITED need mentioning here. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale" and "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community." Berate us all you want but know that it is not likely to change our minds. Nor is it likely to get your proposal added to this guideline. MarnetteD|Talk 23:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

NY Times, LA Times Amazon's Facebook page and the NFL schedule. Even the BBC America schedule uses MD. Of course there are hundreds of other examples but this is enough to illustrate the point that DMY is not in common usage in the US. MarnetteD|Talk 23:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You miss the point. I am not claiming widespread usage of DMY in the U.S.; I am claimng there is no problem understanding either MDY or DMY. Furthermore, citing CONLIMITED is quite off the point, is another strawman argument, because I no where claim that local consensus should override community consensus. I do claim that, in regard of any individual article, the local editors are the best judges of what is most appropriate, and if they can reach consensus then everyone not involved should respect that. If they can't reach consensus the usual considerations apply.

To get back to the point: can you (or anyone) demonstrate any instance of someone who understands either of these two date formats (I exclude infants, idiots, and the senile) not understanding the other? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Concur, modulo the fact "the local editors" mean "the editors who show up for the discussion", not some would-be WP:OWNers of the page who feel WP:VESTED because they were working on the article 5 years go. That would be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problem. Real consensus is determined at an article by Wikipedia as a whole, which means those editors who actually GAF enough to participate (and weren't canvassed) at the present time. People get this wrong all the time. At least 50 times a year, I see some topically-insular pundit declare that so-and-so's opinion doesn't matter because "they don't even edit this article/these articles". Mostly comes up in WP:RM and article-specific WP:RFCs, since they usually take place on the talk page of the affected article but attract attention from all over WP. Anyway, I accidentally reiterated the reset of your post, just below. Hadn't seen your post, we just converged on the same thing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The sort of local consensus I'm thinking about is deciding on an article talk page, whether the article concerns the modern US military or not. The example of Lee Harvey Oswald USMC (retired), for example. I think any editor, regardless of whether they have had any prior input to the article or not, would be able to join a discussion to form consensus. Sometimes arcane knowledge might be needed to participate - at a certain point, my mathematical skills evaporate, for example. I have a sort of grasp of calculus, but beyond that, WP:COMPETENCE applies. If we were trying to work out consensus on an article concerning a finer point of Sanskrit, for another example, there would only be a limited number of editors with the background needed to participate effectively. We all have our different interests and levels of skill. --Pete (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

In response to earlier comment, there's no need to "prove" that MDY and DMY are both understandable to everyone. It's just utterly implausible that anyone but a severely mentally handicapped person, unable to even cope with simple.wikipedia.org, with help, wouldn't be able to comprehend that 19 July 2015 and July 19, 2015 are equivalent. We would not permit both date formats at all if this were the case. In reality, where I live sometimes, everyone regularly encounters dates in a wide array of formats, from 2015-07-19 to "the nineteenth of July, in the year of our Lord two-thousand-and-fifteen", and no one's head asplode. That said, as long as we're going to entertain ENGVAR (which seems like "until machine translation is so good it can auto-fork en.us.wikipedia.org and en.gb.wikipedia.org from each other on the fly"), we're consequently tolerant of the idea that particular formats are contextually preferred over others sometimes. The proposal elsewhere on this page to explicitly allow DMY date for US mil bios because the US mil uses it, but not to require this formatting, is sufficient. We don't need to erase all context-dependent date format preferences just because some people editwar over US mil dates sometimes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems quite implausible that date format should be the least bit confusing. Yet the continuing format contentiousness suggests that even the obvious must be clearly stated. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that DMY or MDY formats are confusing. That's a given. But extending this common sense of the situation into a proposal that either format is acceptable in any article is a different argument entirely. It has attracted zero support in the discussion above. --Pete (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If both formats are understandable, then why should either not be acceptable? Does acceptability have any basis other than simple JUSTDONTLIKEIT? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

In a perfect world, there would be no difference. Alas, our editor base is made up of people who have strong preferences for certain styles of language, currencies, units of measurement and so on. Often very strongly held opinions. People who battle, dispute and edit-war over what is really just stuff inside their head. JUSTDONTLIKEIT, as you point out. If you were one of those people, and you accepted that you were, what would you do? Swallow your pride to fit in with others, or would you argue, battle and edit war to get your own way and have the last word? --Pete (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You are evading the question. Why should either MDY or DMY format not be acceptable in any article? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

See above, brother. This time, think about it. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Still evading the question. Why do you do that? Is it because you don't have a decent answer? (BTW, I am not your brother.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Applicability of ENGVAR

Just out of curiosity, J. Johnson, in what variation of English do they use Aplicability? ;P EEng (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Of course I preview, but perfecton is such a chore. :-) J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the question's being evaded (and I hate it when people evade questions, so I'd notice); he just doesn't want to reiterate the rationales. 'If both formats are understandable, then why should either not be acceptable?' The most obvious answer is: because of ENGVAR's interplay with DATEVAR. Most English-language varieties overwhelmingly prefer one date format vs. the other; the only major ENGVAR that doesn't is Canadian (and even there, there's a strong preference, just not quite a near-universal one). If we were to allow using "July 27, 2015" in random British-English articles, there would be no reason to bother keeping ENGVAR; the rationale for allowing Americanisms in British English in that case would be applicable to doing so for anything else, like the spelling of "neighbo[u]r".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Something can't be re-iterated until it's been iterated the first time. And in this thread you are the first to expressly cite ENGVAR as a basis of acceptability; Pete has failed to offer any basis other than JUSTDONTLIKEIT. (And fear all change.)

But now that you raise it, let us consider whether the acceptability of DATEBOTH is precluded by MOS:ENGVAR. It seems to me this is quite weak, being no more than a backdoor into its subtopic of MOS:TIES (aka "Strong national ties to a topic"), which has a See also back to MOS:DATETIES (with an identical section heading). At best ENGVAR implies (rather arbitrarily I think) that date formatting is a characteristic as inherent in the language as vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, and grammar. I beg to differ, that date formatting is an incidental, and not right or wrong in the same way that (e.g.) "honor" and "honour" can be. If this was otherwise, then U.S.-military articles would be either in violation of ENGVAR, or constitute a distinct variant of English. The absurdity of such a result reflects on the assumption. We have ENGVAR because differences of vocabulary can be confusing (and to avoid edit-warring over spelling and punctuation). We have yet to see any evidence that DMY/MDY is ever confusing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"Reiterate" doesn't require that it have originally been iterated exactly where you'd like to have seen it. This point about DATEVAR and ENGVAR is not a new one, even if it's new to you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Pete is so careless with his assumptions, caveats, and interpretations that it is necessary to have everything above board and in the open; otherwise it is impossible to know just what we are dealing with. (Esp. when he won't respond to specific inquiries.) If someone wants to invoke a point made somewhere else, fine, but they should cite it, so that everyone can see where it comes from. In earlier discussion Pete alluded to ENGVAR in an example, but, not being a mind-reader, I would deem it irresponsible to make any assumptions of what he assumes here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not that confusing, JJ. Look. If it's spelt "h-a-r-b-o-u-r", it's "h-a-r-b-o-r" without the "u". See? The same goes for a few similar words. Where you may have difficulty is with the "ise/ize" endings. That can be a real surprize. I feel your pain. Seriously now, are you trying to have it both ways? It's exactly the same mindset that creates disruption for both date formats and English variants - some people like to change them to their preferred form because they feel that's the way things should be. And they score a few points in whatever game they are playing. We have these rules to stop disruption, not because the words or the dates are confusing. I think that they have worked very well in helping a community of disparate souls work together. --Pete (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. These rules exist to reduce unproductive fighting, not to be declare any particular side "right", or to tie this spelling or that other style to a particular "national variety of English" (which is a fantasy; there really is no such thing at all), as if it were an immutable law of nature. It's just an approximation, close enough to work with, that usually gets people to STFU and go back to productive editing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

If avoidance of unproductive fighting was the key criterion then there are many "rules" that would suffice. Of which the simplest would be: "All dates must be in DMY format; no exceptions". If we want to be more accomodating there are other formulations that can work. As it is there is continual bickering as to whether certain articles have an inherent characteristic (like "national variety") such that they must be one format or the other. I think we can do better, but it is exceedingly difficult to keep the discussion focused. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"The key criterion" implies other criteria, which WP (including MOS) would, and do, balance. Despite all the headaches it causes, the community wants WP:ENGVAR. And it has lead directly to WP:DATEVAR. C'est la vie. Personally, I think the "first major contributor" rule is stupid, WP:GAMEable, and counter-productive, but we have it, and it's more useful to work with it than to rail against it, because it's unlikely to be abandoned. I would personally (despite being American) prefer that we had precisely the "no exceptions" rule you outline for dates, but the community at present would not accept that. If we're going to keep ENGVAR, then using the DATEVAR that corresponds to the variety of English is the simplest solution. There are cases (e.g. the US military) where some other concern overrides this. Ergo, other consensuses can arise to create other such exceptions. Can you articulate what the problem is? "There is continual bickering" is a general description of WP. Loosely tying DATEVAR to ENGVAR reduces it with regard to dates. Tying it more explicitly would reduce it even further. So would eliminating truly pointless variances. Last time I looked, there was some escape clause somewhere to use ISO dates or anything else in source citations, or at least in access and archive dates, regardless what the rest of the article was doing. Which is nuts. Hopefully this has been fixed already.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Personal venting between two editors.

So far you ENGVAR is not applicable, except as it comes back to your main theme that any change to these "rules" will unleash legions of format warriors "immune to common sense and appeals to reason", and all of Wikipedia will collapse. You are so tiresome. And so unhelpful in determining whether there are any other relevant considerations. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the laugh, JJ. No, that's not how it is. MoS changes all the time with no complaint from me. It's your suggested changes that I see as ill-considered and disruptive, for reasons given earlier. --Pete (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC) You're so good with snarky remarks; it's too bad you can't find some employment where they might be actually useful. The fact remains (in your mirthfulness perhaps you forgot?) that you have opposed all proposed changes (Sroc's as well as mine) to the date format guidelines, and on no other basis than your fear of unleashing format warriors. You certainly have not contributed anything useful or relevant on the specific applicability of ENGVAR. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Speaking of snarky remarks… It might have a more lasting moral effect if your remarks condemning snarky remarks weren't such a perfect example of the genre. Just sayin'. Even if you are right in your surmise above, I'm interested to find that you don't see dissuading editors from disruption as "useful or relevant". Seems to me that this is a very big part of what the Manual of Style is all about; working together in coöperation. But I guess we can agree to disagree on that point. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Why should you have all the fun? More seriously, will you never stop misrepresenting my position? I am all for "dissuading editors from disruption". But what I actually said (please try to pay attention, esp. to the part I have italicized) is: "You certainly have not contributed anything useful or relevant on the specific applicability of ENGVAR." What you attributed to me is so radically different (as well as factually incorrect) you really ought to strike it. But I doubt you have the character to do so. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC) If you are confused, just ask for clarification. Let's use your words. You say I have a fear of format warriors. I see this as disruption, because that's what it is when editors go around changing things to their preferred format and others with a different view do the same. I want to avoid this. I have stated so many times. But–again in your own words–you say I "certainly have not contributed anything useful or relevant". Ergo, you see my comments about dissuading edit-warriors as neither useful or relevant. If you now wish to recant your view, that's fine. If you wish to entertain me some more, that's also fine, but at this stage I don't think this discussion is serving any useful or relevant purpose. --Pete (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Pete: regarding your reiteration of my statement please consider the significance of leaving off everything after "relevant" (the part which I previously italicized for your attention). That is an important qualification: I said (and still say), that in this most immediate sub-topic – that is, the specific applicability of ENGVAR – you have contributed nothing useful or relevant. That is vastly different from a totally unqualified statement. That you ignore my qualification (especially when I have emphasized it) and then apply the unqualified statement to a different topic ("dissuading disruption") is syllogistically invalid, and leads to the incorrect result you misattribute to me. This is such a gross error that it reeks of incompetence. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Funny guy. And, once again, wrong. You jump to far too many conclusions. --Pete (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Conclusions? It appears that you don't even what a "conclusion" is, let alone how to derive one. I have made observations (directly observable, needing no logical inference, but perhaps such distinctions are beyond your understanding). The principal conclusion here is yours (following your "ergo ..."). And I have explained how your conclusion is faulty (because you grossly misinterpret what I said). I had a small hope of getting you to pay better attention, but you won't, and it is adequately demonstrated that expending any further effort on you is futile. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could return to the question of the applicability of MOS:ENGVAR to date format? What I asked was why either MDY or DMY format not be acceptable in any article, and whether acceptability depended on any basis other than understandability.  SMcCandlish argues (07:44, 27 July) argues that relaxing ENGVAR would lead to "no reason to bother keeping ENGVAR". However, that argument is not about the intrinsinc acceptability of either DMY/MDY, but of the acceptability of changing a rule. (Which leads right back to the slippery slope argument of unacceptable consequences.) Such an argument can be considered, but it is independent of whether either date format is acceptable (or not) in itself.

So far it appears that the problems with date-format warring have virtually nothing little to do with the acceptability of MDY vs. DMY, but arise entirely primarily from the behavior of editors. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, my point is that date formatting is part of an English language variety, as WP conceives it. It makes no more sense to inject "August 2, 2015" into an Australian English article than it would the spelling "neighbor".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I was so focused on one point that I forgot your other point, that date formatting is inherent in "varieties of English". I am doubtful of the validity of that proposition, but grant that it bears on the intrinsic acceptability of date formatting. More comments later, as I am out of time for today. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

While I do not agree that relaxing date format necessarily undermines ENGVAR, it appears to me it is not necessary to argue that. Even if that was the case, there would be a very simple remedy:severability. That is, remove date formatting from ENGVAR, and the connection is broken. This would not undermine the current state of DATETIES because that can stand independently.

As to date formatting being an inherent aspect of the language: I find the connection to be quite incidental. Sure, there is a strong correlation where all varieties of non-American English imply DMY. But note that the inverse is not true: while MDY is almost entirely associated with American English (AE), DMY is standard for AE-military, AE-science, AE-computers, and often used by AE people with foreign education or military experience. None of these uses constitute a distinct variety of English, and show that AE is tolerant of both. At best, the problem with "Aug. 2" in Australian or "2 Aug" in American is one of stylistic usage, not language itself, akin to the issues of using title-case versus sentence-case.

I note that the current ENGVAR/DATETIES/etc. formulation is not the simplest solution. A simpler one (leaving out universal DMY) that reflects actual practice: DMY is preferred for all articles; MDY is acceptable where there is a strong American or Canadian tie AND there is local consensus to use MDY. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your premise is faulty. DMY is not common in "AE-science" [or] "AE-computers". You could (conceivably) argue that MDY should not be used unless there are "strong ties" to a country where MDY is used, provided that MDY should be used in US-related articles unless tied to a field in which DMY is almost always used. Even that requires consensus to change the existing guideline. More restrictions on MDY use are unreasonable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ regarding "AE-science". My experience is that while DMY is not universal, it is quite common. Note that Science, the most-widely read scientific journal published in the U.S., uses DMY, and there is no evidence this impairs communication in anyway.

I am not proposing "[m]ore restrictions on MDY", and certainly not that MDY should not be used lacking a strong national tie. I believe the "simpler" formulation (above) is pretty much congruent with actual practice. There is one point where it could be made more congruent (and simpler): leave off the national tie. E.g.: MDY is acceptable where there is local consensus to use MDY. The main difference seems to lie in the understanding of "consensus", and the nature of the default lacking an explicit consensus. MDY proponents seem to want a default, even a mandate, of MDY on anything related to the States, and even elsewhere, perhaps fearing they will have to fight an uphill battle where explicit consensus is lacking. This is an over-reaction that ignores DATERET: established and uncontested usage is implicitly consensual, and new articles follow the style of the first major contributor. (Until there is consensus to change.)

However, we seem to have drifted off-topic. The question here is whether MDY formatting is an intrinsic element of American English, or, as I argue, incidental. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(I fixed your wikilink, hope you don't mind) My take on this is that having a standard at least defuses irritating disputes about styles before they can start. There's no obvious benefit to developing a local consensus at each article on whether it should use MDY or DMY. I anticipate a lot of time potentially being wasted on nothing, when we could simply define a standard to be used in the absence of strong reason to the contrary. Philosophical questions about whether it is "intrinsic to American English" are secondary to that objective. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(Thanks. I'm still workiing on that perftion thing.) We can arbitrarily define any standard we wish (e.g., mandatory DMY anyone?), but some standards are more acceptable than others. Keep in mind that it has been argued (above) that if DATEVAR were relaxed "there would be no reason to bother keeping ENGVAR". But this follows only if date formatting is intrinsinc to American English, so that is a vital point. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Pure year–year ranges

"A pure year–year range is written [..]

 •   1881–86;  1881–92 (not 1881–6;  1881 – 86)

[..] But both years are given in full in the following cases: [..]
different centuries: 1881–1903; not 1881–03"

I don't know, this may have been discussed before. This just seems to be a bad rule.. 2000–2001 seems better as some might misunderstand 2000–01 as YYYY-MM (note, that would use a hyphen, not a distinction to many.

The real trouble however begins if say 1998–2000 needs to be introduced (say another section title). Do we want to mix YYYY-YY and YYYY-YYYY ranges? We can never know what needs to be added later to an article.. comp.arch (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Many (most?) other publications would use 2000–01 rather than 2000–2001 to mean the the year range. I don't know of any English-language prose publication that uses 2000-01 to mean January 2000, although one might see it in databases. Since people manage to figure it out in all those other publications, I think they can figure it out in Wikipedia too. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

In all countries and contexts, where the ISO 8601 date format is the recommended date format or even mandantory to be used, 2000-01 would be normally interpreted as January 2000, not as 2000-2001, regardless of language. Even more so since abbreviated year numbers are broadly deprecated since the millennium for all those Y2K bugs they caused. The good news is that it is possible to learn from past mistakes. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Help is at hand. The MoS does not make the two digits mandatory. There is another rule - we use the most common construction. People generally write as they speak - they say, for example, "nineteen sixty-six to seven" and they write 1966 - 7, not 1966 - 67.

Thus 2001 - 2 is perfectly acceptable, and avoids the 2001 - 02 construction which some would think means February 2001. 213.123.194.188 (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Another way round this is to use the slash. You could write 2000/01 for example and I don't think anyone would mistake that for January 2000. 213.123.194.188 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Matthiaspaul:, I don't accept your implication that there is an English-speaking country that requires, or even recommends, ISO 8601 in prose. Indeed, English-speaking countries aren't even in the business of telling their inhabitants how to speak or write. Can you prove that such a recommendation from the government of an English-speaking country exists, and if so, that the recommendation carries any weight with the inhabitants? Jc3s5h (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Christ, this ISO crap again??? ISO 8601 is a data exchange standard and has nothing to do with everyday writing. And as Jc has pointed out, no English-speaking country, AFAIK, commands its inhabitants to read, write, and speak in certain ways. EEng (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (all) for answering. I'm sorry for starting with the minor point. Nobody has addressed my main point ("real trouble"..). [2001–2 wouldn't really help there, 1991–2002, might happen (or just 2001–12), besides, 1991–2 is just as ambiguous as 1991–02 is that case.] comp.arch (talk) 30:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• It simply isn't true that most other publications would use 2000–01; many informal and journalistic sources would do this, especially in compressed spaces, but it introduces a hopeless ambiguity if the number after the dash is under 13, and will be interpreted by many as a month.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

8-digit (XXXX-XXXX) year ranges for sports

• Current wording "A date range may appear in 2005–2010 format if it is a range of sports seasons in an infobox."
• Proposed change "A date range may appear in 2005–2010 format if it is a range of sports seasons in an infobox."

Rationale in a nutshell: The intent is to establish that compact 8-digit year ranges (XXXX-XXXX) are acceptable for a range of sports seasons. In all other respects, these sports ranges should be subject to the same general usage rules as the compact 6-digit year range (XXXX-XX).

Current use in FAs: Rudolf Caracciola (motor sport), Thierry Henry (assoc football), Karmichael Hunt (rugby union), Otto Graham (American football), Joel Selwood (Austrailian rules football), Grey Cup (Canadian football), Michael Jordan (basketball), Jackie Robinson (baseball), Wayne Gretzky (ice hockey)

Background: My bold edit was reverted with the edit summary of "oh, no, no, no. There's WAY too much history to the current wording. I understand what you're trying to do but this will need to be discussed".

As seen by the above sampling of Feature Articles from various sports, the 8-digit format is already being used in places where a compact format using en dash is more suitable than using words i.e. "from XXXX to XXXX". Aside from infoboxes, this is already used in cases like section headers or tables. For sports year ranges, the 8-digit year range is not in practice used any differently than if the 6-digit format were chosen. This is consistent with WP:PROPOSAL: "Most commonly, a new policy or guideline simply documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to them."

The previous discussion to add the 8-digit format can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 144#Date range redux. As a background, the 8-digit format was preferred in for some sports where a single season straddles two years, and is typically expressed with a 6-digit range. While quite a few of the comments were with respect to infoboxes, the spirit of the discussion was allowing 8-digit sports year ranges where the MOS previously allowed only the six-digit format, which was contrary to actual practice. The discussion was closed with consensus to accept the 8-digit form on February 3, 2014. The MOS was not updated until March 7, 2014, when I added it with the overly restrictive limitation for infoboxes.[1]—Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've modified some text which may or may not have caused confusion (to SMcCandlish below?). Removed text has been struck, while inserted text is in red and underlined: "As a background, the 8-digit format was preferred in for some sports where a single season straddles two years ..."—Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't change my position, just reminds me that some people are treating "generally" as if it meant "always".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Support proposal per nominator's rationale. Rikster2 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Partial support with clarifications: This should be used in "infobox-like" compact presentation, such as section headings, lists, tables, and navboxes. Limiting this format to exactly infoboxes was a consensus-assessment error. It's also permissible in running prose, but only in reference to specific, individual seasons, as in the 2014–2015 season, or some favor the 2014–15 season. It should not otherwise be used in running prose, when referring to a span of multiple seasons (use the 2008–2009 through 2013–2014 seasons), or just some date range unconnected to seasons, e.g. played for the team, 2010–2014; that's unencyclopedic telegraphic writing, a news style as used in headlines (same goes for a "...2010–14" version); instead, use played for the team from 2010 to 2014". This is surely central to why the incautious change to a blanket statement in favor of eight-digit style was reverted. The purpose of the 2014–2015 line-item is to cover a conventional, specific usage that is used as a shorthand in particular constructions, not to play some "sports wikiprojects are exempt from date formatting rules" favoritism that scraps basic rules of good writing. There are a few other things with regard to date-range formatting that should probably be re-examined and may need tweaking, but I'll address that separately in the #Discussion section below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Clarified. 15:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

the eight-digit format should never be used to describe a specific season, as in your example. If specifically referring to a sports season (vs. a range), it should be 6 digits (example "the 1993–94 season"). The 8-digit format is only used to express a range (essentially standing in for prose like "Smith played for the Tigers from 1991 to 1996"). Otherwise I agree with your statements. Rikster2 (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Rikster is correct about referring to individual seasons. Per WP:DATERANGE: "Periods straddling two different years, including sports seasons, are generally written with the range notation (2005–06)."—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Rikster is not correct, because "generally" does not mean "always" and thus does not translate, in the inverse, into "never". The six-digit format is problematic, because it's easily misread as YYYY-MM in many situations; this is one reason why it has the "generally" caveat, I'm pretty sure (another is that there are sports in which it is not conventional). We shouldn't be using it at all if you ask me, for the same reason we don't do this with page number ranges (it's pp. 239–272 not pp. 239–72). We should not make the situation even worse by swapping out plain English Smith played for the Tigers from 1991 to 1996 for telegraphic gibberish like Smith played for the Tigers 1991–1996. WP is not a newspaper. Actually, even a newspaper wouldn't do that except in a headline. So, I'll support this for compact presentations (infobox, nav, heading, table, list) only, not running prose unless it's in ref. to a single season.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your comment on usage in compact presentations as opposed to running prose. However, that applies to the six-digit format as well, and is not unique to eight-digits. Thus, the proposal was made to strike "in an infobox" from the eight-digit note. No prejudice if the MOS is enhanced separately to generally discuss common practice regarding compact form vs prose to cover both six- or eight-digit formats. If you agree that is can be handled separately, please consider changing your !vote from partial to full support. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"generally" does not mean "always": True, MOS is a guideline, and WP:GUIDES says "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines". So in that sense, there can always be common sense exemptions.—Bagumba (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you wrote and support the proposal, however, to me it does not make sense to restrict the yyyy-yyyy range to sport seasons. yyyy-yyyy is the normal form to express a range of years in compact form (that is, when the long form "from year yyyy to year yyyy" is undesireable to be used for some reason). Therefore we should allow it whenever the abbreviation yyyy-yy is allowed at present.

If you ask me, I would also support to go further and deprecate the yyyy-yy form (except for in citations and where a range needs to be expressed in 7 characters for space reasons). It looks like a leftover from the past century to me. As I wrote earlier, there was a lesson to be learned from the Y2K nightmare, and this is to avoid abbreviated years. In fact, I very rarely see this form being used outside the English Wikipedia now, perhaps once or twice a year, whereas I see the 4-digit year form almost on a daily basis. Most people now seem to stick to 4-digit years.

Generally speaking, the purpose of the MOS is to assist editors in chosing a writing style which is non-ambiguous, easily accessible, consistent (where possible), and logical (hopefully). At present, the section on pure year ranges recommends the form yyyy-yy and then lists a long lists of conditions and exceptions when yyyy-yyyy should be used instead because yyyy-yy causes ambiguity. So, why don't we just swap this around, and recommend the easier to parse form yyyy-yyyy as the default compact representation and specifically allow yyyy-yy in those cases where we know that it does not cause confusion? Sounds way more consistent and logical too me.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask that a new thread be started with your proposal to remove "if it is a range of sports seasons" as well? I don't want to sidetrack from this (hopefully) simpler proposal already here. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't want to "hijack" your thread. I just thought the proposal would be related enough to be discussed in tandem in order to reduce the general overhead and free everyone's time for more actual article editing. Anyway, you have my support... --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd rather see us approach this more programmatically, but need to review the exact present wording before getting into the details of what tweaks may be needed. I'll post a followup here later.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Follow-up: I agree we're talking about multiple different things, above, and have attempted to outline all of them:
  1. YYYY–YYYY is the normal way, in good writing, to express a date range where compacting (in a table, etc.) a phrase like from YYYY to YYYY is necessary.
  2. This is not exclusive to sports, but across all topics.
  3. YYYY-YY should be avoided everywhere, because it's sloppy, and it produces confusing results like "2008-09" which automatically means "September 2008" to many readers, and is ambiguous to all others. Same goes for YYYY/YY.
  4. In running prose, the YYYY-YYYY season is a normal way to express a single sport season that spans the Dec. 31 / Jan. 1 year boundary.
  5. This is also true of some other things, e.g. television seasons that span a year (the YYYY-YYYY season again), a serial publication issue that spans a year (the winter 2008–2009 issue), and literal seasons that span a year (a population that dropped precipitously in winter 2008–2009 or ...summer 2008–2009 in the southern hemisphere); it is often not the only way to write it, e.g. the winter of 2008–2009. So, again, we have no reason to limit this to sports specifically.
  6. There are some [potential] exceptions to – formatting, contexts in which / is traditionally used and is the majority use in reliable sources on that topic. Some sports conventionally use the 2014/2015 season or even season 2014/2015, given in compact form (tables etc.) as 2014/2015. Whether MOS wants to "honor" that or not is an open question; an argument can be made that it's totally harmless ("an acceptable alternative style which MOS should not prohibit" is how we usually approach such things), while another can be made that it's the WP:Specialized-style fallacy. I lean toward the former, specifically because it would have to directly conflict with normal usage in a way that confused people, in order to be an SSF, and I don't see any evidence of such confusion. Even the winter of 2008/2009 is common in reliable sources, probably more common than the dash version. I can break out the pile of style guides if necessary; I have a suspicion that a slash may be recommended in place of a dash by many of them, for two consecutive years.
  7. In running prose, willy-nilly use of YYYY-YYYY and YYYY-YY are substandard, informal writing, for sports and all other topics: played for the Tigers 2008–2015.
  8. One sports-journalism usage in particular, which seems to be the genesis of this thread, is also substandard writing: the halfassed-compressed form played for the Tigers in the 2008–2015 seasons. It's gibberish. There is no such conceptual entity the 2008–2015 seasons. They are separate things, and what is meant is from the 2009–2010 through 2014–2015 seasons (or from the 2009/2010 through 2014/2015 seasons, depending on the sport's season naming conventions). If it there's no in-context need to mention seasons specifically, this can be compressed to from 2009 to 2015.
  9. Some conceptual date entities do span more than a single year boundary, as in seeking the 2016–2020 US Presidency.
  10. A side point not discussed here yet, this time, but worth reaffirming is that we should never capitalize as Season (in TV, sports, climate, or anything else), per the general MOS:CAPS approach: If in doubt, do not capitalize. The external sources do not uniformly capitalize this, even for sports or TV, so we don't either, as a zillion WP:RMs and other previous discussion demonstrate. An obvious exception would be in titles of published works, e.g. a DVD box-set called The X-Files Season 9.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:: Given your general support for XXXX-XXXX across all domains, can I assume you support the premise of allowing XXXX-XXXX for sports when a compact form is needed, and not exclusively for infoboxes (as it is currently worded)? If so, I would propose to incrementally make the minor change originally proposed here, and start a separate discussion on expanding XXXX-XXXX for use beyond sports, which I imagine might need more discussion. Thanks for your consideration.—Bagumba (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I've already given that, above: 'This should be used in "infobox-like" compact presentation, such as section headings, lists, tables, and navboxes. Limiting this format to exactly infoboxes was a consensus-assessment error.'  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

With regard to #3 I would disagree that 6-digit date format should be avoided "everywhere." It is the most common display for a split-year sports season like basketball or hockey ("the 2009–10 season") and should remain the default for that IMO. So I suppose that means I disagree with #4 and if the proposal is to change MOS to reflect this I would like more discussion on that point. I also don't think this proposal was suggesting #8, that in prose a range use the "–" instead of from/to. I believe the proposal has always been about compact usage and don't believe anyone was suggesting the MOS be changed to allow this. Rikster2 (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Update There seems to be consensus to remove the "in an infobox" text as proposed. Moreover, Matthiaspaul and  SMcCandlish have expressed an interest to expand the XXXX-XXXX format beyond sports, which they are encouraged to continue (possibly under a new thread that doesnt end in "... for sports", so as to involve other interested parties in the wider discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I am against' encouraging YYYY–YY usage anywhere unless it is done to meet width constraints on tables, but even then it should only be contemplated if there is no elegant alternative. Back in the good old days when Wikipedia was edited by real editors and not quiche eaters, editors used to link all years like this 1900-1905 (notice also the use of dash instead of ndash). Now although times have moved on and we have bots to change dashes to ndashes between such dates, I am against the change of using two digit years, because if people want to search the internet for a date, any pages using two digests formats are likely to be missed. As this is not a paper encyclopaedia, we do not have to save characters like they do in paper encyclopaedias by truncating dates or page range (as it will have a detrimental affects on internet searches). The old wording in this guidance was the typical neutral wording of a consensus compromise:

A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year (1881–1986). The full closing year is acceptable, but abbreviating it to a single digit (1881–6) or three digits (1881–886) is not.

It was changed by this edit on 24 September 2010 by user:PL290. to

A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986).

I think that broke a compromise which exists in fact (it certainly did on the pages I edit which retain all four digests in such cases). AFAICT there was little or no discussion of that change in the archives. The no no examples were reinstated by user:EEng with this edit on 12 January 2014 but without the wording "The full closing year is acceptable" which I think was a mistake.

In the case of sporting seasons or school years (like night time bombing raids during World War II: "night of 17/18 May 1940" (eg Bombing of Hamburg#Timeline) then I prefer "1881/82 season" rather than "1881–82 season".

-- PBS (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly concur with "I am against' encouraging YYYY–YY usage anywhere unless it is done to meet width constraints on tables". It's sloppy telegraphic writing / headline style. "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year" is wrong. It's fairly (probably decreasingly) common in journalism, is avoided in academic writing, and is something we cannot do with any automated tool, or in any other circumstance where what comes after the hyphen might be under 13, because it produces hopeless ambiguity, and will be interpreted by many readers as a month not an abbreviated year. "The full closing year is acceptable" is an understatement; it's preferable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I was just wondering whether anything had been done about this and was delighted to see this discussion underway. Although I agree entirely with the points made above in support of XXXX-XXXX format, perhaps the strongest argument of all is that the current guideline is practically never followed. The MOS should reflect usage not dictate it wherever possible, and the vast majority of editors are clearly using the full 8-digit format. If this needs to be formalised somehow I hope it is, but otherwise surely there is consensus above to make the change? Frickeg (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I am somewhat unclear what is being suggested here, but for the record I am against moving away from using the six-digit date format to denote distinct sport seasons that span a calendar year (like 2013–14 Dallas Mavericks season). This is the overwhelming manner in which these are displayed in reliable sources in the U.S. (as well as other countries) and directly discouraging the practice (in context of course) does not seem like something MOS should do. It seems like Wikipedia should reflect reality. Rikster2 (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
      • My comment, for the record, has nothing particularly to do with sports seasons, about which I know essentially nothing and am not qualified to have an opinion, really. It was in support of the 8-digit format being either the preferred format of date ranges generally, or at the very least as an equal option with the 6-digit format and preferred in tables. Frickeg (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternative Date Formats

MOS:DATEFORMAT

In the "Acceptable date formats" table, it says that YYYY-MM-DD is an acceptable format for brevity. But then it says "No equivalent for general use" for the expanded format.

Why exactly can't we use YYYY MMM DD or YYYY MMMM DD? Seems perfectly reasonable to me... – SarahTehCat (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD is very widely used ISO standard.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

MOS:BADDATEFORMAT

I've two questions about this section:

1. Why are the formats YYYY MMM and YYYY MMMM not allowed? Seems a bit half-assing it, to be honest, if you allow year-month-day but not year-month, especially since the reverse, year-day, is allowed. Just wondering.

2. I would hardly blame anyone for refusing to use this format, but just out of curiousity, if you can't do YYYY MMM or YYYY MMMM, is the format YYYY-'M'MM allowed? After all, this is one of the accepted forms within the ISO 8601 standard.

I assume it is not allowed, but I would like to know for sure, nevertheless. :) – SarahTehCat (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Same answer as above. The spaced version isn't a standardized format, it's just weird and easily misinterpreted.
2. Huh? That seems to be an argument for 2015-'August'08 instead of August 2015. I don't find anything at that article suggesting anything like this. MOS doesn't, and can't allow every possible ISO 8601 quirk, anyway. Many of them are not parseable except by experts, and were intended for machine reading. We would never use 2015-08-02T15:57:44Z or 2015-W31-7 (and those are comparatively human-readable, given some of the even more compressed constructions). And some of them just do not work at all in our context, no matter how formatted, e.g. 'one may write ... "19" to refer to the century from 1900 to 1999 inclusive.' On WP, as in all other publications intended for human reading, a year value of "19" means 19 CE not the 20th century.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

   PS: I'll quote User:EEng two threads above this: 'ISO 8601 is a data exchange standard and has nothing to do with everyday writing'.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I keep repeating this and being ignored, but I'll repeat it again. The YYYY-MM-DD date format is widely used in written communications in Canada, as also are the European DD/MM/YYYY and American MM/DD/YYYY formats. I've worked for a number of companies that mandated YYYY-DD-MM as their standard for all company documents. It solved the fundamental ambiguity on whether 05/08/2015 is May 8 or August 5 - t's always bad to show up in the wrong month for an important event, and some people have done that. Mandating the YYYY-MM-DD format also avoided annoying arguments like these on Wikipedia between British and American expatriates over which date format to use, and is compatible with Quebec law, which often makes it illegal to use English words like "August" in workplaces. YYYY-MM-DD is also the standard date format in Chinese, and Chinese have been the largest group of immigrants to Canada in recent years. (Scary fact: there are more people in China who speak English than there are people in the US who speak English). The same companies often mandated YYYY-MMM-DD as their standard for short dates and YYYY MMMM DD as their standard for long dates. Thus the date could be written as 2015-08-05, 2015-Aug-05, or 2015 August 5. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You aren't being ignored. You are simply not getting traction for your viewpoints and refuse to drop the stick. This is a good example, since pretty much the one date format NOT being discussed in this subsection is YYYY-MM-DD. And, to rehash the previous objection to your arguments - even if YYYY-MM-DD is commonly used in technical documentation (citation needed) and particularly in areas that require machine readable consistency, Wikipedia is written for humans. And humans don't use "2015-08-05" in regular conversation or reading. Resolute 19:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. yyyy-mm-dd, with its leading year, is a special format used where sorting of dates is a consideration (including filing of coreespondence). It's also an all-numeric format, and a special case in being the only numeric format allowed here. In formal writing (i.e., WP article text), the year is generally trailing, and the issue between DMY/MDY (where "M" is non-numeric) is the order of the day and month. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, humans don't use "2015-08-05" in regular conversation or reading - if you exclude the Chinese, of which there are 1.4 billion, from the human race. What you are really saying is that "Americans and British don't use 2015-08-05 and they are the only people who matter." But Americans and British don't agree on which format to use, which is why many Canadians use "2015-08-05" instead. It is the Mercutio A plague on both your houses approach.

To quote from the Wikipedia article Date and time notation in Canada:

While the Canadian Standards Association has adopted ISO 8601 as CSA Z234.5:1989, its use is not mandated in every situation. Thus in Canada three date and time formats are in common use. According to the Canadian Payments Association, which regulates cheques, the big endian ISO 8601 YYYYMMDD is preferred, but MMDDYYYY or DDMMYYYY may be used, and cheques must include date indicators showing which format is being used. The federal government tends to use the big endian format, but some federal forms, such as a commercial cargo manifest, offer a blank line with no guidance. Passport applications and tax returns use YYYY-MM-DD. Government of Canada regulations for expiry dates on foods mandate YYMMDD, MMDD, and DDMMYY. English language newspapers use MDY (MMM[M] D, YYYY). In Quebec a variation of DDMMYYYY is used.

I often liken it to screws. Americans usually use Phillips screws. Canadians prefer Robertson screws, which are much superior screws. The only reason Americans use Phillips screws is that Henry Ford didn't want to pay to use Robertson's patents, and Phillips more or less gave his patents away for free. As a result I am continually taking out the screws supplied with American products, often with a screw extractor because they have been damaged due to their poor design, and throwing them away, substituting better Robertson screws. Of course, car manufacturers now use Torx screws because you can't get away with screwing cars together with inferior screws any more, but you still have to put up with crappy Phillips screws in other American consumer products, and buy a set of torx screwdrivers to work on your car. Should Canadians be forced to use inferior screws just because Americans do? Of course not. Same thing with date formats. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I like YYYY-MM-DD as a format and use it often. Every time I make a subdirectory to hold a day's photos, for example. The Bigendian format sorts automatically, making my directories easy to navigate. In a perfect world, we would all use this or a similar format and there would be no disputes.

However, we at Wikipedia do not yet have the full control over making the world perfect. We must work with what we have, and the sad fact is that in everyday English text numeric format dates jar, especially in YYYY-MM-DD sequence. It would be like reading aloud except that everytime you encountered a comma, instead of pausing, you clapped your hands. If we went to YYYY-MM-DD in article text, there would be an uproar. People would say we had lost our grip.

Personally, I think the US Middle-endian date format sucks. But it's what people use in the US (mostly), and it's what our American editors feel happiest using as they write our articles. I think that the current situation, where US subjects use US dates, British subjects use international dates, Canadians and every other subject use either works well to minimise disruption. We might be able to jigger our system around a little, but any major departure from what we have would piss off our readers and editors alike. We're an encyclopaedia, presenting information to those who seek it. We aren't a religion, dogmatically enforcing our views and foibles on a helpless world. Yet. --Pete (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I object to calling the DMY format the "international" date format. It is really just the conventional European date format, with former European colonies in South America and Australia following former colonial standards. China, Japan, and Korea use the YMD format instead. So, in reality, the world has three formats: the American MDY format, the European DMY format, and the Asian YMD format. The ISO 8601 standard is compatible with the Asian date format, so it is what is used by a large portion of the world's population. Since it is set by the International Standards Organization (ISO), the global reality is that the International date format is YMD, not DMY. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I take your point on ISO being an international format. However. China, Japan, and Korea use a different way of presenting text. It's not a phonographic system such as we and many other cultures use–Indian use of Devanagari, for example–where each character represents a specific sound, more or less. We use Roman characters and an English alphabet, and we don't present dates in text as number strings. In the USA and one or two other places, it is August 8, 2015. In the rest of the world, it is 8 August 2015. In some places, where they use other ways of writing, it is 2015-8-8. But we need not bother about those other places, because we are not presenting our encyclopaedia's text in those characters. I call DMY "international format" because that's what it is, when compared to US format. If you ae arguing that we should use ISO dates in our English-language encyclopaedia because the Chinese use it when writing a different language in a different character set, then I hear what you are saying and regard it as irrelevant to our work here. --Pete (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Yes, humans don't use "2015-08-05" in regular conversation or reading - if you exclude the Chinese, of which there are 1.4 billion ..." We do exclude them from consideration here, because this is the English language Wikipedia, not the Chinese language Wikipedia. —sroc 💬 14:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And more importantly, RockyMtnGuy, please stop claiming Canadians use that date format on a regular basis in normal writing, because I can tell you as a fellow Canadian, you are completely wrong. Resolute 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What you are really saying is that Canadians use other date formats in informal writing. Business writing is a different issue. I know Canadians use YYYY-MM-DD on cheques because I was Treasurer of a not-for-profit organization for 8 years. It was the preferred format for the Canadian Payments Association so it was what I used. I know it is used in business writing because I was a Business Analyst working and/or consulting for several companies, and many of them mandated the YYYY-MM-DD format for all written documents. I know Canadian governments, particularly the ones I dealt with, often used it on forms, although governments are mostly consistent in their inconsistency. And, whenever I designed computer systems, I used YYYY-MM-DD. It saved my employers and clients a large fortune when the Y2K imbroglio hit, because everything I designed from the start of my career was Y2K compliant, from 1970 forward. Being non-compliant with standards and catering to everyone's personal whims costs companies money, and ISO 8601 is clear, unambiguous and foolproof, unlike DMY and MDY. The main obstacle was Microsoft, whose programmers didn't even know what ISO 8601 was. Some organizations came close to suing them over their date handing in Y2K. Some organizations I worked for actually did sue them, but over other things they screwed up. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

What format is used on cheques, on forms, in computer systems, is immaterial here. We're talking about writing dates in text. If you could provide links to some samples of contemporary Canadian prose with dates in iSO format, that would be helpful here. --Pete (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. None of the cheques I was paid with when I lived in Canada were in YYYY-MM-DD form. That's something that a large business entity would do, at the request of their bank, their own account dept, or (most often) because a payroll company did it that way. It would be done that way for automated data processing reasons, in other words, not because it's an everyday Canadian human preference, not even in business writing. When I lived in Toronto, the preference, for dates everywhere (on signs, letters, TV listings, whatever) was somewhat toward "6 August 2015", but "August 6, 2015" was also encountered (among more wordy constructions like "August 6th, 2015", "the 6th of August, 2015", etc., in journalism and other less clipped contexts). In compressed form, people did all kinds of things, but it was pretty rare, in my memory anyway, to encounter "06-08-2015" or anything like that, because of the innate ambiguity. People would almost always use something clear like "6 Aug 2015" or "6-Aug-2015" or "Aug. 6 2015" or whatever suited their preferences, but not all-numbers, in any order, including ISO order except among the programmers I was working with (who lean toward that format worldwide, just as they also often put slashes through their zeroes in even in handwriting). There seemed to be an uneasy, default assumption in TO that "06-08-2015" or "6/8/2015" meant an August date not an American June date (probably because a majority of e-mail, blog, webboard, and other software does it this way, worldwide, when not using YYYY-MM-DD format); but urban, south-border Canada does so much business with urban north-border US that people genuinely seemed to avoid this kind of date format in everyday life. I wasn't in Montreal, the Martimes, the Prairies, Vancouver, the Yukon, etc., so I can't generalize about Canada, only report what I noticed in the GTA in the 2000s.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Death date and age#Proposed change to template - Aged or Age

There is a template called {{Death date and age}} it calculates someone's age given DOB and DOD. One of the parameters alters the ordering from MON DD, YEAR to DD MON YEAR to cater for the differences between US and UK date formats (see MOS:DATETIES). At the moment which ever date format is used the template use "aged nn". The proposal would change that so that if a US format is used the template will use "age nn" but keep "aged nn" for UK date formates. There are two questions being discussed:

1. Is "age" the correct syntax for US style date?
2. If so should an change be made to the template to implement a switch from "age" to "aged" depending on the date format chosen?

-- PBS (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I've long counseled that templates shouldn't "enforce MOS" by forcing the output to conform to MOS' current ideas of e.g. that this date format goes with that choice of age vs. aged. Consensus on such things can change, and it's intolerable that what should be a technical tool (the template) becomes a defacto encystment of an old decision which makes it difficult to change that decision at a later time.

In particular, as to "If we can agree on 1. above, then let's do 2.", I guarantee that's a bad idea‍—‌rank-and-file editors HATE that kind of silent, involuntary mass change based on a discussion among a relatively few editors. This is true even if the change is a default that can be overridden.

Unless someone thinks age is always "wrong", we can implement the following change right now:

make age/aged simply another parameter, with the default being the only current possibility i.e. aged.

This will change nothing in current invocations, but editors will have it available. Maybe (maybe) someday there it will be appropriate for MOS to say something about which of age/aged to use, when. EEng (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think "age" is always wrong, and I'm in the US. One might say "died August 4, 2015, at age 77." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank goodness for that! One less linguistic division. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

I don't particularly care about this, I simply advertised it here so that editors who do care (like EEng and AR and RF) can express their view in that debate (it seems futile putting views here, as it will not affect the outcome of that debate). -- PBS (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's best not to tie one thing to another on the basis that Americans do x and y whilst normal people do i and j. Hey, Canadians might just do x and j. This kind of thing has plagued {{convert}} for years (e.g. "US"/"U.S." linked with "~re"/"~er" ... somewhat my bad but in spite of my attempts to undo it's hard to stamp out). I'd suggest keeping these separate. Note also that usages change anyhow. Jimp 16:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Age/aged is not an ENGVAR matter, it's purely syntactical; as Arthur points out, "age" can be used after a preposition like "at". But the construction "died age 77" or "died, age 77" is substandard telegraphic writing, and is properly "aged" not "age", in any major dialect.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

We should clarify "In most articles..."

I am reluctant to open yet another discussion about units of measurement (and doubtless many here will be relieved to read that this does not involve UK units), but I think that one bullet point could use a little clarification:

In most articles, including all scientific articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic

The problem with this, which will be immediately familiar to many MOSNUM regulars, is that the word "most" immediately invites the response "most is not all", which is in effect just a charter for individual editors to ignore the MOS and choose whichever units style they want. It invites attempts to game the MoS, which is undesirable.

I am currently involved in a dispute which relates to this, in which there is an editor who wants one particular distance in Ukraine (!) to be given primarily in "English miles" rather than "French kilometres". I have tried to explain, to no avail, that the purpose of a Manual of Style is to ensure that questions such as this do not come down to arbitrary individual preference, and that they need to follow the MOS prescription unless they can give a very strong reason not to. If certain editors do not approve of "French kilometres", that's irrelevant, and if previous editors gave a measurement in a disfavoured style, that by itself is not sufficient reason for retaining it.

So in light of this dispute, and to prevent annoying future ones like it, I'd suggest rephrasing this bullet point as:

In all articles not otherwise exempted, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic

This phrasing makes more sense – my reading of the bullet point as it stands, is that it is intended to apply to those articles which are not covered by "non-scientific articles relating to the United States" or "non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom". There's no point in allowing editors to game this one clause because of its vague ("most") language. Moreover, it maintains the necessary provision for contexts in which the commonsense primary units are something else (we do not need to worry that it will require every single time duration to be measured in kiloseconds). Archon 2488 (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The clause change indeed would eliminate any defence of what the proposer characterises as "commonsense primary units". It would therefore facilitate the proposer's all too apparent crusade to metricate Wikipedia, as recently observed by Toddy1, for no reason other than because they would prefer it that way, by removing any room for reasoned exceptions.

Look too at this example where the proposer lost the argument to Sturmvogel 66, the proposed clause change would have left no room for the common-sense argument that prevailed and the proposer's unreasonable changes would have stuck.

The main trigger for the annoying disputes of which the proposer complains, is the proposer's almost single-issue-agenda leading to his mass daily editing-out of imperial and editing-in of metric as the primary units in carefully targeted editing sprees.

As the proposer's agenda is all too transparent, and as the proposed change would weaken the case for common-sense exceptions, I oppose it. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for immediately responding in the most ad hominem way possible. I will avoid, for the sake of maintaining constructive discussion, responding in kind to your personal attacks. I edit articles to ensure they comply with the MOS; my edits do not comprise mass-conversion of articles about the USA to metric-first, for example, so I hope others can see there is no mala fides there.

Your objection is apparently that my "agenda" is too "transparent", meaning that my intention of clarifying a serious ambiguity in the MOS guidance is clear to everyone. This was indeed my intention; there is a degree of ambiguity about the meaning of "most" which has been gamed. Does "most" mean that a distance in Ukraine can be given in miles, because somebody just so happens to want that? Surely not. NPOV and the commonsense criterion of least astonishment dictate that if the distance from Houston to Dallas is given primarily in miles, then the distance from Dnipropetrovsk to Kiev is given primarily in kilometres. That shouldn't even be controversial, and there is no good reason to allow wiggle-room, which simply opens the door to bad-faith arguments. Why then allow the ambiguity? Why should articles not comply with the normal MOS standard simply because some editors would personally prefer that they didn't?

My wording clearly allows exceptions, in cases where those exceptions are actually warranted by topic-specific reasons, and it clearly does not allow wiggle-room for editors to argue that articles should not use the metric system because they personally don't like "French kilometres" (!!) or because somebody else previously decided, for whatever reason, to give a measurement in a style which isn't compliant with the MOS. In the case you describe, and in some others, editors argued that there were substantial topic-related reasons (e.g. historical reasons, such as the Russian Empire using non-metric units) to use a different style. That was, is, and will remain legitimate under any conceivable proposal. I am sure that any fair-minded editor can see that the argument "Russia didn't use the metric system at that time" is not equivalent to "I don't like French millimetres, so it needs to be in English feet and inches". My proposal, in a nutshell, is to clarify the difference between the former (good-faith) argument and the latter (bad-faith) one.

Even the editors arguing against this must be aware that, in terms of real-world practice, it violates the criterion of least astonishment to give a distance in Ukraine primarily in miles. We've already had a bad-faith request for those editors asking for the article to follow the MOS to provide an arbitrary number of secondary sources to support their contention that the distance should be given in kilometres – that is extremely pointless, it has no basis in the MOS, and it is disruptive.

It was in no way my intention to change the substance of the current MOS guidance – only to clarify that the normal standard is metric-first unless there is some good reason not to follow that standard. This is already, I submit, what a commonsense, good-faith reading of "In most articles..." would be – certainly not "In most articles, except when I don't want to..." Archon 2488 (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to specify the following:

• In non-scientific articles relating to countries other than the US and the UK, the primary units are metric or other internationally used units.

I believe that this is what the present wording intends to convey. Michael Glass (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

But it is not what the current wording says.

I see no reason why people should be forced to use the metric system. This is English Wikipedia, and most English-speaking people understand non-metric measures best for many things.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: what's the evidence for this claim? If by "most English-speaking people" you mean "most Americans" you may well be right, but worldwide I very much doubt it. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. There are more English speakers in China than the USA, for example. Most of the British Commonwealth uses SI units and have done for some decades. Imperial units are used by a minority of English speakers, and are steadily growing obsolete. --Pete (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What Toddy1's argument neglects is that this is an international project; it is not being written exclusively for an Anglo-American audience. From a global perspective, the use of non-metric units is in the minority; to comply with the spirit of NPOV and representativeness of real-world use, we make special exemptions for those two countries, and we allow individual articles to use a different style only if topic-related reasons warrant that. The only way to ensure NPOV compliance is to follow local usage. We certainly do not make exemptions for individual editors to argue that an article can use whatever style he or she personally believes "most English-speaking people understand".

The NPOV case here is extremely simple: given that Wikipedia states the distance from Houston to Dallas as "miles (kilometres)" and from Sydney to Melbourne as "kilometres (miles)", which of these formats is more appropriate for a distance in Ukraine? It's a simple question with an obvious answer; making the standard format unclear by using the notorious weasel-word "most" benefits nobody. To argue for the retention of "most" is to argue, in effect, that there should not really be a guideline (because, you know, "it says 'most' not 'all'"). Archon 2488 (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support, and look for the best way to say it. Use the international units (first), unless there are good reasons not to. This comes down to non-scientific US-related articles and possibly UK-related article, though as pointed out above, SI units have been in use in the UK for quite some time now, which may actually be enough to warrant a SI-first-accompanied-by-non-metric system of unit presentation there. --JorisvS (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

JorisvS, indeed they have been in use for some time now in the UK, but they are still no nearer to being accepted in mainstream common usage. Indeed the trend appears to be moving back towards more imperial usage following various climb-downs and reversals of policies concerning enforced metrication. If anything, the UK rule here should move closer to the US rule. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My proposed change deliberately doesn't relate to US or UK articles. I agree with you that the UK guidance is overly conservative, since the UK has now been using SI units for some time, but it's a toxic subject with a long and acrimonious history here, which I do not want to reopen. This section is exclusively about articles which do not have strong national ties to the USA or UK. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not a fan of Archon's wording - it's a bit too legalistic I think - but his reasoning is entirely correct. The word "most" here is clearly to contrast the large majority of articles from the US- and UK-related articles, for which there are different rules. For articles not related to either the US and UK, MOSNUM recommends that we should be using SI (and other units as described) unless there is a good article- or context-specific reason not to. I have not checked the context in question, but I find it very unlikely on an article on a Ukrainian city that such a reason exists.

The argument against this seems to be that the use of the word "most" effectively allows editors to override the guideline for no good reason. It should come as no surprise to those familiar with units discussion that I strongly reject such an argument. For one thing, if it meant that, why put a guideline in at all?

I would not endorse Michael's wording. I believe he intends to add an extra bullet point? Such a point is entirely superfluous if it intends to describe the same mix of units as the existing one, and if not then I don't think it would be useful for us to change this rule to something quite so vague. Kahastok talk 17:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I would also oppose adding a new bullet point – there is no need. We could simply re-order the the three current bullet points so that the US and UK ones go first, then the last bullet point acts as a catch-all ("In all other articles..."). This would be simpler than the admittedly clumsy language of my first proposal. I agree that a good-faith reading of "most" in this context means "without strong ties to the US or UK", but the intrinsic vagueness of that word means that the door is left open for a bad-faith reading ("it doesn't say all, does it?"). Best to close the door if we can, by making it explicit what "most" means – if you give some people a French millimetre they'll take an English nautical league. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I am happy with this proposal. I would prefer to put the general rule first, followed by the exceptions - but I haven't considered how it might be worded that way. Kahastok talk 21:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense to me too. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I am pleased to see such a large area of agreement between Kahastok and Archon. This means that agreement could well be in reach. On the matter of the order of the dot points I like the idea of starting with the general rule and then dealing with the exceptions, but in this case, dealing with the exceptions and then stating the general rule that applies in all other cases may be a better way to proceed. Michael Glass (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Works for me, too. We need to clarify the existing material not add a new bullet. It really is the case that it's two exceptions, and for everything else be consistent. The "most" here is being used to WP:GAME, so the section does need clarification, but we don't need to do it with legalistic language, just a logic flow that prevents an "I can do whatever I damned well want for WP:ILIKEIT reasons" interpretation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistencies which need rectifying

• When I tried to implement the MOSNUM recommendations for UK related personal heights and weights ("the primary units for personal height and weight are feet​/inches and stones/​pounds") I got an injunction slapped on my talk page basically prohibiting me from doing so. When I came here looking for help and advice I got reprimanded and the conversation turned to discussing how MOSNUM should be changed to tolerate the non-compliant metrication. MOSNUM was not changed, so the UK related heights should be given primarily in imperial units, yet the anomalies still exist in those articles and there is apparently nothing that can be done to correctly apply the MOSNUM recommendations there.

• When I joined a talk page discussion about whether non-UK articles should be metricated on sight and without discussion or consensus the indignant metricator came here to get MOSNUM changed so as to make their mission easier for them.

• Currently it appears to me that MOSNUM must be totally ignored when it recommends imperial primary units and it must be strictly applied, even modified to make it easier to do so, when it recommends metric primary units. How can this inconsistency possibly be tolerated? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Meditation or Scotch or possibly both. --Pete (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact, I'm off out now for a 568 ml (or two). Speccy4Eyes (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The difference is the long history of problems that have arisen on UK-related articles. This has not happened on other articles - including US-related articles which use non-metric units first - so there is no reason not to treat units on those articles in the normal way. This is not a matter of changing the advice - metric first in articles not related to the US or UK has been the spirit of the rule for many years - but to make it clearer what is intended, in a case where it has clearly been misinterpreted. Kahastok talk 21:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Kahastok, the UK rule to use imperial for personal height and weight could hardly be clearer, yet even though it is openly flouted, it is completely and utterly unenforceable, so pointless and useless. What do you think the point of making this rule for metric clearer is? Speccy4Eyes (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As Kahastok says, the situation with UK-related articles is different. General Sanctions were introduced to prevent edit-warring in that one specific context. We should not discuss UK units further here, since this section is solely about articles without strong ties to the USA or UK. Bringing up UK units is simply a means to derail this conversation.

Your second point above, Speccy, is a poorly disguised attempt at a personal attack on me which I'll ignore. I will say, however, that misrepresenting the intended meaning of the MOS in this context and then calling those who object "indignant metricators" is not exactly constructive, and it is not a substitute for having a real argument.

The inconsistency you speak of does not exist. Articles about the USA do in fact use the "US customary (metric)" style and articles about the UK do in fact use the "imperial (metric)" style in contexts where that is appropriate. That you have recently repeatedly attempted to change certain UK articles from one style to the other, when there are sanctions in place, is not something I'd draw too much attention to. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both Archon and Khastok that we should deal with non-UK, non-US web pages at this time. UK units are a distraction at the moment. Better to deal with them at another time. Michael Glass (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The main point I am making is being missed, or at least being ignored. If a rule as clear-cut as the current one for UK personal heights and weights can be gratuitously flouted with impunity, then what is the point wasting time and energy trying to agree new wording to bring another rule up to a similar level of unambiguous clarity?

Even if it is clearer, an equally impotent new rule can only give rise to further, even more bitter, conflicts between those attempting to provide comprehensive, rich and interesting content and those (inevitably reinvigorated by this) whose sole purpose appears to be to metricate Wikipedia at all costs. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me give an example. In the Australian Constitution, a body called the Inter-State Commission is established. This is the fundamental aw of the land, and yet there is no Inter-State Commission in existence. The federal government saw no point in paying for it. There is nobody, no body, with the authority to compel the government to implement this Inter-State Commission. The High Court has no power, nor has it been approached on the matter. The States are unable to force the Federal government, nor is anybody but the Feds able to do it. And they don't want to.

It may be that the tide on Imperial units is on the ebb, and though one or two may see it as important to preserve feet and ounces and stuff, there is not the will to push the matter to ArbCom, who I suspect, would be reluctant to make some sort of blanket ruling in a matter that had little support amongst the general population of editors. --Pete (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Unproductive inter-personal venting that is off-topic

Speccy's argument now seems to be that we shouldn't clarify this rule because there are some issues he has with other rules. I suggest that that's irrelevant, and that constantly bringing up UK units is extremely unhelpful. I understand that you have your own opinions about units, most especially UK units, but that is irrelevant to the question we are discussing: should there actually be a guideline with substance or not? My sole argument here is that the word "most" neuters the guideline by permitting a bad-faith interpretation, according to which it can mean whatever an editor wants it to mean. The mere existence of some articles which don't follow certain other points of MOS guidance (whether warranted or not) is not a reason for us not to remove the problematic word "most" from this one guideline, and it is yet another distraction. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Archon 2488, this is getting tiring as you are repeating that red herring yet again. I am not discussing other rules. The point I'm making has nothing to do with UK units or the rules here governing them. What I am doing is questioning the necessity of strengthening a rule when even a rule as strong as the one relating to UK personal heights and weights is completely useless as it is unenforceable. Articles need consensus before they can be changed if there is opposition to the change, even, apparently, to comply with MOSNUM. It just looks like a case of rearranging the deck chairs to me. You are wasting everyone's time going over this time and again. Please try adding some new content rather than keep coming back here worrying about the measurement units that others have chosen for the valuable content that they have added. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC) It seems to my small understanding that you wish the wording changed to stop water from flowing downhill. If most editors are opposed to your desires, as evidenced in their actions, then it appears to me that your attempt to stop them is doomed to failure and the attempt is going to be disruptive in itself. --Pete (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Pete, you'll need to explain all that for me. What wording do you think I want changed? In this discussion I am objecting to a proposed change because I think it's pointless, I have not proposed any change myself. My rationale was based on the fact that even the totally clear and unambiguous rule that I mentioned does not work because rules here are toothless, relying as they do on acceptance by specific article editors before their recommendations can be implemented. I know this from the experience of trying to invoke the one I mentioned in a few articles, to no avail. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC) My mistake. However, it still looks to me like you are standing on the beach asking the tide to turn. --Pete (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Pete, do you think that the desperation to change the rule is so great that no amount of reasoned argument will reduce the momentum? Apparently consensus is supposed to be based on the balance of reasoned argument, so let's see how rigorously that rule is applied here. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Commanding the tide to turn, pissing into the wind, call it what you will. --Pete (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC) It's not a red herring, Speccy. You've repeatedly pushed your minority opinion that the UK units section should be like the US units section, and it has repeatedly failed to gain consensus. You're now trying to derail a discussion which has nothing to do with UK units. In any case, your argument as it stands is logically invalid: even if I were to grant you that the UK unit rules are often ignored (or even, as you absurdly put it, "must be totally ignored") in practice – and my experience is that they are not – it would not logically follow that we ought not to strengthen a different MOS rule. To follow that logic to its absurd conclusion, you could argue that if you found one article that apparently didn't comply with one MOS rule, then the whole MOS would be pointless and we should throw it all away. You've given us an argument by analogy which does not make sense. To say it again, the question is just: do we want to have a guideline of substance, or not? I contend that getting rid of "most" shuts down an avenue for dishonest arguments that can be used to push fringe interpretations of unit use, and it does not actually change the fundamental meaning of the MOS text. It's extremely ironic that you are now accusing me of presenting red herrings, when you have not presented a single relevant argument in this entire discussion. As Pete/Skyring says above, you're in effect wasting others' time by defending positions that will never gain consensus (and you do not lose gracefully). As for the irony of "[p]lease try adding some new content [rather than discussing MOS issues]" coming from an SPA which does nothing but push imperial measurements... oh my. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Archon 2488, with the MASSIVE LIE in that bad-faith diatribe you have shown your true colours. In case you do not know which lie I am referring to, it is the first phrase in this statement of yours: "You've repeatedly pushed your minority opinion that the UK units section should be like the US units section, and it has repeatedly failed to gain consensus." To justify that one you are going to have to give us at least 2 different diffs of me "pushing" (not merely airing) that opinion. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC) I am not under any obligation to allow you to waste my time trawling through your edit history to find enough evidence to satisfy whatever standard you have concocted. The absurdity of this is that just a few comments above, you said that "the UK rule here should move closer to the US rule", which is the very fringe opinion I mentioned. I have no intention of getting into a hair-splitting argument about what constitutes "pushing"; that is exactly the kind of time-wasting nonsense I object to. In the Ukraine dispute you were trying to insist that Michael Glass and I had to produce (some arbitrary number of) sources to justify our claim that distances in Poland are measured in kilometres – of course, that is a standard invented by you, which you can adjust to your own pleasure. You are not in a position to demand that other editors justify everything to your personal satisfaction. None of what I wrote was bad-faith; I do sincerely believe that your comments in these discussions often lead to to wasting the time of other editors, whether that is the intention behind them or not (about which I don't really care). You haven't given a single relevant argument in this whole thread, and now that I've patiently explained why your airing of your grievances with the enforcement of the UK units section here is irrelevant and unhelpful, you have resorted to screaming at me that I am a liar. Given that, in your past couple of comments, you have variously patronised me ("please try adding some new content") and outright insulted me (by calling me a liar – I mean, really?) I think our little exchange is at an end. You're trying to get a rise out of me which I have no intention of giving you. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Back to what the OP was saying: There wasn't a consensus to change MOS to stop recommending these units. The fact that a particular editor likes to ignore MOS on this point and wants to start vexatious ANI noise about it isn't an "injunction", it's just disruption. One should continue to do what MOS says, and let the WP:BOOMERANG effect take care of the WP:TE problem. Separately, it's worth discussing whether MOS should still recommend a colloquial unit like "stone" (I would argue against this), but that doesn't mean you're wrong to do so if it says to do so for now. The whole "metrification" activism thing is silly noise, since {{Convert}} gives you both feet/inches and metric, in whatever order one wants.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Revising the wording

The present wording is as follows:

• In most articles, including all scientific articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for angular speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera).

The problem with the present wording is that been interpreted in a way that contradicts the main thrust of the recommendation. Hence the present | dispute

One suggested wording was this:

• In all articles not otherwise exempted, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic

However, an objection to this wording was that it was "a bit too legalistic". Perhaps, other wording would hit the mark. I think MOSNUM should specify all scientific articles but perhaps others can come up with better wording. Michael Glass (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "not otherwise exempted" sounds a bit legalistic. How about

• "In all scientific articles and all other articles not specifically related to the United States or the United Kingdom (see below) ..."? --Boson (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think Archon's second proposal above is better: I understand it to be to move the current first bullet point to the end and replace "In most articles" with "In all other articles". Kahastok talk 12:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I too would prefer, as a matter of principle, having the most general rule first followed by the exceptions (which seems the most logical and intuitive way to arrange things) but in this case it might be clearer to put the exceptions first and the general rule after them. There's no need for the general point to emphasise "in all scientific articles", I think, because the US and UK bullet points are worded specifically to exclude science-related articles. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the above proposal would look like this:

Quantities are typically expressed using an appropriate "primary unit", displayed first, followed, when appropriate, by a conversion in parentheses e.g. 200 kilometres (120 mi). For details on when and how to provide a conversion, see the section § Unit conversions. The choice of primary units depends on the circumstances, and should respect the principle of "strong national ties", where applicable:

• In non-scientific articles relating to the United States, the primary units are US customary, e.g. 97 pounds (44 kg).
• In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that:
  • the primary units for distance/​length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon (except for short distances or lengths, where miles are too large for practical use);
  • the primary units for personal height and weight are feet​/inches and stones/​pounds;
  • imperial pints are used for quantities of draught beer/​cider and bottled milk;
  • UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn-up in (but road distances are given in imperial units, with a metric conversion).
• In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for angular speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera).

Is this what it would be? Michael Glass (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is my proposal exactly. I support the adoption of this new text. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that the first sentence of that proposal is not strictly true. In some situations, such as when the reliable sources give a measurement in units other than the primary units being used in the article, it is the article primary unit that is the conversion, followed by the value from the reference as the secondary unit. This would more correct:

Quantities are typically expressed using an appropriate "primary unit", displayed first, followed, when appropriate, by the equivalent value in another unit in parentheses, where either value may be the value from the reference e.g. 320 kilometres (200 mi)

Speccy4Eyes (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

That's correct, but it's already covered by the final bullet-point in the units section:

Where the article's primary units differ from the units given in the source, the {{convert}} template's |order=flip flag can be used; this causes the original unit to be shown as secondary in the article, and the converted unit to be shown as primary.

The statement we are discussing is just about the order displayed in the main text of the article, not how to format the wiki markup. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I added your example of order=flip usage to the main page, since there was a comment suggesting we could do with one. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I support Archon's proposal.

• It confirms present practice.
• It is brief and clear.
• It resolves the ambiguity in the present wording.
• It will help settle a dispute that has arisen partly because of this ambiguity.

Michael Glass (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• I also support that version. I would like to remove "stone" as a recommended unit, because it seems to lead to confusion and contention, but I'm willing to save that for a separate proposal if it would be a sticking point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not about changing the advice for UK-related units, because that way lies very long and circular discussions that go nowhere but waste lots of people's time. We really don't want to get into it.

But - and I raise this purely for information - the fact that you raise stones in particular (as opposed to the concept of using imperial measures for personal weight), and that your user page indicates that you are American, suggests to me that you may have assumed that British and American usage are the same in this area. They are not.

Simply put, in the US, if you had someone who weighs, metrically, 76 kilograms, that would be expressed as "168 pounds". In Britain, you'd only ever hear something like "168 pounds" in an explicitly American context, and because not everybody can multiply and divide by 14 quickly, you might not actually have much idea of how heavy the person is. You'd normally express it as "12 stone", which would be well understood. Unfortunately, there isn't a picture of British bathroom scales on the Commons, but Americans on this page have in the past expressed surprise that - at least on analogue scales (as digital ones allow you to switch) - the primary dial is in stones and the secondary dial is in kilograms and there's no dial at all in just pounds.

In my view we should actually be expanding use of stones and pounds so that they are visible for all personal weights, including outside UK contexts. Kahastok talk 09:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that stones belong in the stone age, but that is outside the scope of this discussion. British and American usage, more saliently, are different because for the past ~40 years, only one system of weights and measures has been taught in Britain (and used increasingly in almost all aspects of professional life), which is certainly not the case in the USA. This is a large part of the historical reason why the USA and UK guidelines have come to be so different; metrication in the USA and metrication in the UK are simply not comparable in their extent. As an example of a British person who was educated under the new system, I see a "pint" as just an odd word for a glass that's slightly more than half a litre, imperial weights and temperatures I have no intuitive grasp of at all (I know a "stone" is 14 "pounds", but since I have never had to use pounds except when weighing my luggage in American airports, that is not exactly helpful to me – imagine being told that a flabbergast is very easy to understand at a mere 29.3 eegojoogles, and then someone telling you that they weigh 19+2⁄3 flabbergasts), inches are confusingly oversized centimetres, a "yard" is an archaic way of saying "about a metre", and miles are just illogically sized units that appear on road signs. But a lot of people in the UK are old/conservative/don't like the metric system for reasons I have never understood, so the present mixture is somewhat of a compromise between two fundamentally irreconcilable positions, with the result that nobody likes it.

But we should leave off any discussion of specific UK-unit-related topics, to say it again. I don't want another protracted and acrimonious discussion about stones, such as I was nearly drawn into above... Archon 2488 (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• I also support Archon's proposed changes. I don't support all the of the current text on UK usage, because I don't believe it accurately represents formal British usage, but we have been there before, and I too have no interest in circular, time-wasting discussions. I would have no objection to permitting stones and pounds as a secondary unit to make articles more understandable to British pensioners if we could, in exchange, use metric primary units for height and weight in contexts where they are normally used in Britain (most non-colloquial contexts?). --Boson (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Just how old do you think the pension age in Britain is? 25?

Stones are used routinely by the vast majority of the adult population, including those who like me have grown up under the current system. Even if schools did teach you to weigh yourself in kilograms (and in my school the only unit used for the purpose was the Newton), it still wouldn't change the fact that you would go home and find that the rest of the culture - from newspaper reports to sports broadcasting to police descriptions of suspects to your bathroom scales - uses stones. Kahastok talk 15:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but we were talking about your proposal to use stones for personal weights "outside UK contexts". So it is not a matter of what a 25-year old Brit would use at home or read in the local newspaper, but whether he or she would understand the use of kilograms when applied in a foreign context. I was agreeing with your proposed use of stones, because people who are eligible for a Freedom Pass might have missed that bit of the national curriculum. --Boson (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand the logic of your claim that someone who has never used or even considered using kilograms for personal weight of a Briton is suddenly going to understand them fully when used to describe a Frenchman.

You claim that "people who are eligible for a Freedom Pass might have missed that bit of the national curriculum". But again, you're claiming a pension age somewhere at most in the low twenties. Shoot, can you demonstrate that the intuitive understanding of personal weight as measured in kilograms is even in the national curriculum today? I very much doubt it. The closest reference I could find was this which actually acknowledges the continued use of the stone in precisely this context. Kahastok talk 21:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the reference you gave, you will see that the context is the origins of systems of measurement, explaining to six- and seven-year olds how people used to use things like actual feet for measurements and letting them discover for themselves the disadvantages of such systems. And by the age of ten children are using the metric system but also "know the basic conversions between metric and imperial measurements for length, weight (mass) and capacity" .The standardized National Curriculum was introduced in the 1980s, but was developed from the systems introduced in the early seventies. Anyway, as I said, I have no interest in a repeat of the circular, time-wasting discussions, that we all remember; so I'll leave it there. --Boson (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I've gone through the entire British education system from nursery school to PhD. Imperial units were mentioned virtually never. All measurements of weight/mass (yes, yes, I'm a physicist and I understand the difference, but in this context it's essentially irrelevant, and I hope we never start a discussion about whether the "stone" or "rock" or "lump of mineral" or whatever the hell it is, was intended by the illiterate medieval peasants who invented it to be a unit of mass or force or something else) were in kilograms. I have no idea why you believe people are taught to understand kilograms for measuring the weights/masses of everything except one bipedal mammal. I can tell you, at least from my own experience of the UK education system, that this was not a problem. Nor is it a problem for people in almost any other country on earth, for whom we do not need to provide reams of evidence that they can understand weights/masses in kilograms. You are applying a standard to people of one nationality that is applied to those of no other. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

So is there a part of the national curriculum that does discuss the measuring of personal weights in kilograms, as you suggested before? I couldn't find one. If a child only ever measures themselves and others in stones, then the only unit they will will become familiar with in this context is the stone. Because the standard unit in this context in this culture is the stone, this is happening as much with today's children as it did with today's pensioners. I do not argue that this is a good thing - that is not our concern. Wikipedia should reflect the world as it is, not as we might like it to be. Kahastok talk 21:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As I suggested before? Either you are reading into my statements something I did not write, or I expressed myself badly (though I can't see where). However, see above. --Boson (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"this is happening as much with today's children as it did with today's pensioners" Do you actually have any evidence for this? I'm certainly not a child, and when people try to state their body weights/masses in multiples of (some random lump of granite that existed somewhere in medieval England where the evil EU bureaucrats and the BIPM couldn't destroy it) I haven't a clue what they're talking about. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

My parents still think of their height in feet and inches, distances in miles and furlongs, and their weight in stones. Bathroom scales are in kilograms, with stones as an alternative, although most have only kilograms these days. I can reassure British editors that at the rate they are going, it will be another 20 years or so before you reach this point. In articles on athletes, I have always included conversions using the old measurements (as we always call them), so an athlete's height appears as 201 centimetres (6 ft 7 in) and weight as 94 kilograms (14 st 11 lb). What's wrong with that? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised you suggest "Bathroom scales are in kilograms, with stones as an alternative, although most have only kilograms these days." My experience is that most are electronic, all with a choice of kg/st/lb. Of the analogue ones, most give stones on the outer ring and kg on the inner. Here is the choice from Argos, one of the largest retailers. Chief archivist (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"This country" in Hawkeye's case is Australia. In Britain it's still stones-primary in most circumstances as you describe. Kahastok talk 21:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

In contexts where measuring body mass is actually important it is not at all uncommon to use kilograms; indeed it is the standard practice. Ask any healthcare professional. Do you think BMI is measured in stones per square toenail, or some such? Archon 2488 (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

We aren't writing for doctors or scientists, as a rule. We're writing for everyone. In Britain, at the moment, and whether you like it or not, that means stones. Maybe in twenty years it will change, but that's where we are today. Kahastok talk 21:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hawkeye7: I'm not sure if the question ("What's wrong with that?") was addressed to me, as appears from the indentation, but I have no objection to that. I understood that to be Kahastok's suggestion for non-UK articles ("we should actually be expanding use of stones and pounds so that they are visible for all personal weights, including outside UK contexts"), and I was offering qualified support for that (for instance in exchange for using the same format for UK articles).--Boson (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, you asked "What's wrong with that?" Well nothing, unless it is a British athlete of course, in which case MOSNUM says: "the primary units for personal height and weight are feet​/inches and stones/​pounds". So it must appear as "6 feet 7 inches (201 cm) and weight as 14 stone 11 pounds (94 kg)" for them. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support revised wording as per Michael Glass/Archon. This removes a lot of the wriggle room that allowed people to buck the spirit of the existing wording, leading to wastage of time, and collegial wrangling. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposers want to use Wikipedia to advocate the metric system. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I do think this has been a problem in discussions on this topic. But the change accurately reflects the spirit of the existing rule. I do not believe people are necessarily deliberately misinterpreting the rule, but I do believe it has been misinterpreted and it's worth making it clearer to prevent future misinterpretation.

(The alternative would seem to be to propose the change in the rule. If you believe that "most" implies an exception in some circumstances, for example, what circumstances do you believe the exception applies to?) Kahastok talk 21:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The question you need to answer, then, is how my proposal would actually change the substance of the existing guideline? Archon 2488 (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• (ec)Support a good simplifying proposal that removes an ambiguity. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as I think it was only proposed because the proposer has recently been challenged in their mission to continue, as they have systematically been doing for most of the 2 years since this edit, to metricate articles. The main excuse, if ever challenged (which is rare because few, if any, of these metrications have been clearly described in the accompanying edit summaries) by the hard-working content providers that have been disrupted by these actions, having been merely that it is mandated by MOSNUM. Of the 2 successful challenges that I have come across of this abuse of MOSNUM, both would probably have failed if the MOSNUM wording was similar to that proposed here. The reversion of this (note misleading edit summary) was met with this (see edit summary) and this discussion (note the weak "justification" and ungracious capitulation in the face of a compelling case). More recently this sneakily summarised metrication edit was followed by a reversion by a content adding editor, which resulted in this further reversion. That last case led to the proposal here, seeing as the content provider stubbornly stuck to their guns. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you actually provided us with any reason why an article about Ukraine should use any style other than that prescribed by the MOS? What real, justifiable exemption from the normal MOS guidance would apply in such a case, and how could it be made to apply consistently? Archon 2488 (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I really do think most of Speccy's comment above should be disregarded. When I checked the links, Speccy provided an appallingly partisan account of the interactions. In the case of the Dnipropetrovsk article, Toddy agreed that, based on the edit history of the article, kilometres should come first. In the other case I can see no justification for describing Archon's words as "ungracious".

This leaves the declaration of the two opposers that this clarification of the wording amounts to advocacy of the metric system or a mission to metricate articles. This is best answered by the comments of uninvolved editors such as this and this. Michael Glass (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Michael Glass, would you also disregard partisan accounts that support your partisan opinions? Interesting too that you singled-out two contributions that support your view as the best answers. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You are not being constructive. Archon 2488 (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You've repeatedly and explicitly accused other editors, including Speccy, of bad faith in this discussion. Do you not think it's just a bit of a double standard for you to now complain if he fails to assume good faith? Kahastok talk 21:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your argument does not consider how warranted those assumptions of good faith (or perceptions of bad faith) are. The comment that he posted immediately above was purely an ad hominem criticism of Michael Glass to the tune of "well, you would say that, wouldn't you?". Like several of Speccy's comments here, it had little relevance to the substance of what we are supposed to be discussing, and it was phrased in a needlessly patronising and hostile way ("your partisan opinions"), which is not conducive to a peaceful discussion. And even if I were to grant you that I had – for no reason at all – perceived certain of his behaviours as bad-faith, that would hardly be an excuse for him to do the same thing to someone else, nor would it invalidate my observation that his comment was unhelpful.

Anyway, now that we are at the stage of trying to start disputes with each other over trivia, I'd suggest we leave this thread alone for a few days to see if there is any more input from other editors before we move to close it. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Archon 2488, you didn't give any reason other than "because MOSNUM says so", which is in direct contravention of one of the opening statement in WP:MOSNUM: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable." Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've answered this question before: the fact that two styles are equally permissible in the abstract does not imply that they are equally permissible in every article. To follow your logic to its conclusion, if I found an article about a US-related topic which used the spelling "colour" I'd be disallowed from changing that to "color" because US English and UK English are both "optional styles". There's nothing wrong with changing an article to be more internally consistent, and more consistent with the MOS. Otherwise, why bother having an MOS? What you are arguing for, in effect, is a carte blanche to ignore what the MOS says. This whole dispute arose because an editor was not happy to allow one measurement in one article about Ukraine to use the format that virtually all measurements relating to Ukraine are given in on Wikipedia, namely the style prescribed by the MOS. To water down the MOS standard in the way you seem to favour would open the door to arguments such as "you can't force us to use French kilometres!". This whole discussion is a perfect case study in why the MOS exists. Archon 2488 (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Archon 2488, [[[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] look], you didn't even try to explain why you changed it the first time - "style" tells us nothing. The second time you said "these are also the units used in Ukraine and almost every country on earth. do not change without a good article-specific reason", which again is not a justification for defying the MOSNUM advice or for edit-warring. Then you went to the talk page and basically said it should be that way because MOSNUM says so, finishing with this: "Given all this, I propose that the article be returned to the MOS-compliant style forthwith." That defied the MOSNUM statement "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable" that Toddy1 referred you to. No more excuses please and no more false analogies. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

At this point you've made it clear that you are not listening to me; you're just asserting the same thing again and again in the hope that it will change something. It won't, and there is no need for another circular MOS discussion on this topic. Your personal reading of the MOS to the effect that one can never change a measurement from one format to another is not reflective of the community consensus, and you should probably just drop that stick. I am also not obliged to write edit summaries in a way that you personally approve of. Since this discussion is not going anywhere, I will not respond to you any further. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. As this has turned into a vote now, I would like to register my total opposition to this change. I think that without any clear examples of exactly what this is intended to stop, we cannot assess whether we think it might work or not. The choice of units is usually very important to some people, where most others couldn't care less. This chance removes flexibility which might be important in some areas, we simply do not know. So I think such a change is too restrictive. Chief archivist (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we're really voting; Michael Glass decided to list the main contributors with what he understood to be their opinions, which I now see the downside of.

In any case, the example of what it was intended to stop was the article Dnipropetrovsk, where my attempt to format one distance measurement according to the normal MOSNUM standard was reverted by an editor who argued that he didn't want "French kilometres" but preferred "English miles". He also responded "WP:MOSNUM does not say that metric units must be used first", which is exactly the kind of problematic argument that I am trying to tackle here.

My intention is solely to remove this one kind of "flexibility" – the flexibility to say "most doesn't mean all" and "can is not must", which means in effect that there is no guideline, and an editor can have a personal exemption from the MOS because he wants one (in the case of Dnipropetrovsk, an exemption for one measurement, for no specific reason). You are correct that a sensible degree of flexibility is required, which is why the bullet point (current and the proposed version) says "such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic". Meaning that you need to produce a good article-specific reason if you want to use a nonstandard format, rather than just saying "most isn't all". If in this context "most" is intended to mean "not US-related or UK-related", why not just say that a bit more explicitly?

Because the proposed version and the current version differ minimally in substance (the latter is intended to mean the same thing as the former, without the unhelpful ambiguity that is introduced by "most") I don't see any far-reaching unintended consequences. It's the same rule as before, but just harder to game. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Chief archivist As you stated a clear opinion above I have recorded your opinion as oppose below simply as a matter of fairness. However, if you are not happy with that, please remove your name and accept my apologies. Michael Glass (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Support. I support this measure strongly and commend Archon 2488 for his continued efforts against this barbarism. We need to make it harder to game these rules. As long as there is no major change to the substance of the sacred MOS guidance, there is no problem. ZICO (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Support and Oppose

Archon's proposed amendment has support from,

• Archon
• SMcCandlish, 01:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Boson 15:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Pete, 22:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC
• Dondervogel2, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Michael Glass 23:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• ZICO 12:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Also:

• JorisvS 08:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC) *"Support, and look for the best way to say it. Use the international units (first), unless there are good reasons not to. "
• "I am happy with this proposal. I would prefer to put the general rule first, followed by the exceptions - but I haven't considered how it might be worded that way." Kahastok 21:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• "I think Archon's second proposal above is better: I understand it to be to move the current first bullet point to the end and replace "In most articles" with "In all other articles". Kahastok 12:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Archon's proposed amendment has been opposed by

• Toddy1, 20:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Speccy4Eyes 21:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Chief Archivist 21:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope I haven't missed or misquoted anyone who has expressed an opinion. Michael Glass (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It is almost never useful to divide people up in this way IMO because you'll almost inevitably misrepresent people or take out much-needed context. Any close should be based on the discussion above and not on a partisan editor's oversimplification of people's comments. Kahastok talk 20:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

In this case I don't see what's been oversimplified. My reading of MG's comment directly above is that any editor who commented in this discussion with a support is mentioned as such, as is any editor who stated oppose. You were, I think, the only significant contributor who didn't give either, so he gave some of your relevant comments. So long as everyone who stated an opinion is included in the list, I'm not sure how that can be partisan or misrepresentative. Bear in mind, all we are proposing is to clarify a rule without changing its substance. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly right. My voice has not been misrepresented in the tally above. It looks to me like as clear a consensus as we ever get around here. --Pete (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If it is accepted that the summary is accurate, then there is no point in listing people because it will be clear already. As it happens, the list it is not strictly accurate as Speccy notes below - not all the supporters supported the same thing. Divorced from context this is not clear. You could also argue that quoting the same editor twice doubles the appearance of that editor's comments.

It may be that we can nonetheless accept all the supporters listed as supporters, but that's for the closer, not a partisan member of the community.

I note that I have many times seen such summaries provided that were significantly misleading and/or ignored crucial context, skewed in such a way as to imply more support for the position of the summarising editor than actually existed. We should not assume that this has not taken place. And it's also significant that this is not a vote, it's a discussion. The arguments are important. Kahastok talk 21:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a very misleading summary as JorisvS did not support the current proposed new wording, just the notion that the old wording could be improved. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

True, he didn't explicitly say that he supported the precise wording we are discussing here. We can fix that easily enough. JorisvS, would you please let us know if you're happy to support the current proposal? Archon 2488 (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

One thing that this list of supporters and opposers has done is to concentrate people's minds on the wording. Several things need to be stated. First, I have added the opinion of ChiefArchivist. Secondly, JorisvS wrote "Support, and look for the best way to say it. Use the international units (first), unless there are good reasons not to." For Speccy4Eyes to characterise this as "just the notion that the old wording could be improved" is a serious misrepresentation. I included two comments from Kahastok so as not to distort or misrepresent what he wrote. Finally, I want to thank those who defended me against the usual ad hominem but, I do acknowledge that this list of supporters and opponents does not and cannot weigh up the relative weight of the arguments. As for the context of the discussion so far, it is still there. Michael Glass (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is to confirm that the above straw poll summary (which currently misspells my name and one other) correctly reflects my view. The change proposed by Archon (that is first describing usage for non-scientific US and UK articles and then referring to all other articles) clarifies what I always understood to be the intention of the guideline.But is removes a slight ambiguity that made it possible to interpret if differently. It describes what has, in my opinion, always been consensus, it is clear and concise, and it appears – unfortunately – to be necessary. --Boson (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the misspellings. I have corrected them. Michael Glass (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I moved JorisvS's comment to the 'also' list, as it was made before the wording above was proposed. (copied verbatim) Michael Glass (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Michael Glass, I noticed too that you lobbied JorisvS as a potential supporter of the new wording after you were criticised for adding him to the "support" list above. I'm not too happy with your actions here in trying to exaggerate the support for this measure - you are using methods which to me don't seem to be honest and fair. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

How do you suggest we go about asking him to clarify his position in a way that is honest and fair? JorisvS has already expressed an opinion in the discussion, so it's not like MG is lobbying previously uninvolved people to support his position. I'd also suggest to you that (implicitly) to accuse MG of being dishonest and unfair – over something so trivial! – is pretty unhelpful. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Speccy, I wrote : "As you expressed your opinion a couple of days before this wording was devised it would be helpful if you could indicate whether you supported the later wording. If you could do so here it might help in decision-making." I regard your description of this as "trying to exaggerate the support for this measure" as another clear misrepresentation. Michael Glass (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

False consensus? Vote-stacking?

As I said above, I was concerned about what I perceived to be dishonest and unfair tactics being employed to, perhaps, influence the direction the discussion was going above. Well, as it turns out, Wikipedia policies, guidelines and 'case law' (for want of a better term) seem to support my feelings.

• WP:CONSENSUS says that the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. So the lists that Michael Glass keeps tweaking here, headed "support" and "opposed", cannot possibly help with that.
• Additionally, Wikipedia:False consensus says in its "List of 'opponents'" section, that making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In particular, making list of "opponents" or coordinating actions in order to drive off or punish perceived "adversaries" goes counter to the necessary collegial atmosphere required to write an encyclopedia. (my bold).
• Wikipedia:Canvassing calls posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (as Michael Glass did to JorisvS) 'vote-stacking' and classifies it as 'inappropriate notification'.
• And what a fantastic coincidence that ZICO - who hadn't edited since May 2014, and who even then only made a handful of edits after making another surprise appearance, following 5 months absence, to support Archon 2488 again in another metrication dispute - should turn up again out of the blue to support Archon 2488, the proposer of this change!

I think this 'discussion' should be declared null and void, and that perhaps any violators of relevant Wikipedia norms should be prohibited from participating im future discussions about this - as suggested in Wikipedia:False consensus, which says that administrators who become aware of any such manipulation should immediately disregard any such consensus, and initiate a new process barring those who participated in any such improper activity. (my bold) Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with making an inventory of supports and opposes. If you have a point to make, make it and stop whining. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Dondervogel 2, an inventory is a list, and those who oppose are opponents. WP:False consensus is very clear about condemning lists of opponents, it even has a section for it. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Such a list helps one identify the concerns of those mentioned (it is your choice to call them "opponents"), and address legitimate concerns they might have in common. That's a good thing because it leads to consensus. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that there is a clear difference between 1) a neutral list of people who have stated opposition to a given proposal, and 2) a list of people who are considered personal opponents (i.e. enemies) – what one might call a shitlist. In case 1) the people so listed are not being stigmatised, and in case 2) they are. Your argument appears to blur this distinction.

I suggest to you that an interpretation of what MG has done above, with due presumption of good faith on his part, is that he has made a kind of straw poll – a simple, neutral measurement of where the consensus position might lie. It is not binding, and it is simply something to guide our discussion. Making a straw poll (which will inevitably include a list of people who "oppose" the proposal, however you want to phrase that) is certainly not a violation of any WP policy or guideline. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Speccy, I understand that you do not approve of how this discussion has gone. I'll start off by stating that Wikipedia talk pages are not intended to be a legal system. Still, I agree that the quality of the arguments should decide – of course it should. In the specific case we examined here, there was no legitimate reason given why editors should be able to say at a whim that an article on Ukraine should not use the metric-first style consistently. We are speaking only about articles without ties to the UK or US, and we are not proposing a substantial change – only less ambiguous wording. That is the kernel of the discussion, over and above voting (or, really, straw-polling, which I think is what MG is trying to do). Regardless of your opinion on straw-polling, it is very unfair to describe Michael Glass's list of "people who have stated opposition to the current wording" as "a list of opponents", making it sound like he is drawing up a hit-list or something equally sinister.

I would also ask you to interpret MG's asking JorisvS for his opinion with some charity. There was precisely one person in the discussion, whom you identified, who stated explicit support for modifying the guideline along the lines I suggested in general, without supporting the current proposal precisely. I then asked him directly whether he did support it (i.e. clarifying an opinion he had already expressed) as did MG. If he doesn't want to reply to us, then fair enough. MG has not, to the best of my knowledge, been asking previously uninvolved people to come here and express their opinions (this is what votestacking refers to). I apologised to you for being too quick to throw around accusations of acting in bad faith, so I would ask in turn that you do not rush to draw unfavourable conclusions about other editors' behaviour.

Please do not attack other editors as soon as they enter the conversation – that is unlikely to be constructive and it certainly deters others from commenting. I assume ZICO has some sense of humour about these perennial discussions, given that he was involved in another one some time ago (indeed it is usually the same people, round and round, on and off) and little has changed. But that doesn't delegitimise his opinion.

You have been given ample space to air your objections, which is (to my mind) part of a fair discussion. I do not understand why it would be in our interest to start another one (this time, apparently, without everyone you disagree with). This is supposed to be a simple discussion about a simple proposal, and I suggest that repeating it from stage one would help nobody. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Archon 2488, those who oppose are opponents and WP:False consensus condemns lists of opponents.

WP:Canvassing describes vote-stacking as "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)". That message was posted to a user based on their known opinion from prior statement, thus was vote-stacking by that definition.

And I didn't attack ZICO, what I did was note the extraordinary coincidence that he should show up here, out of the blue, after a Wikipedia absence of more than 14 months, just when you needed him, in exactly the same way that he did back in January 2014 after an absence that time of more than 5 months. It almost seems too unlikely a coincidence to actually be a coincidence, don't you think?

The ideal simple and fair discussion has, I feel, been perverted by an ill-advised drive to exaggerate and embellish the level of support and to diminish and trivialise the opposition. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

If you're asking us to accept that merely listing people who oppose a given idea is unacceptable, then that flies in the face of common sense.

Vote-stacking refers to selectively notifying uninvolved editors whom you think will support your proposal. So if MG had known of a few other editors he thought might have supported his own position, and he notified them for that reason only, that would count as vote-stacking. Asking someone who has already participated in the discussion to clarify their position is not, I think, the same as vote-stacking.

In both of these cases, I am unpersuaded that your interpretation of the relevant policies is correct. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just noticed another infringement of the WP:Canvassing advice too.

• There in the "Campaigning" section it says: "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages." Michael Glass posted this to the talk page of Chief archivist, an editor who opposed the proposal being discussed, saying: "For an object lesson in why MOSNUM advice for non UK non US articles needs to be tightened, please see this discussion at Talk:Dnipropetrovsk."

It speaks for itself. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Speccy. Please check the dates. Chief Archivist opposed Archon's proposal wording on 13 August. I wrote to him on 16 August, three days after he had expressed his opposition to Archon's proposal. The dates alone blow your conspiracy theory out of the water.

I wrote to draw Chief Archivist's attention to your stonewalling an agreement at Talk:Dnipropetrovsk. Both Archon and I pointed out that the history of the article was against you, but you refused to acknowledge this. It was only when Toddy pointed out to you that the history of the article was against you that you relented. The discussion of this proposal is and remains an object lesson in why we need Archon's proposal. Michael Glass (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Michael Glass, the date of your post is significant, yes. You went to an editor's talk page after they opposed the proposals above, in an obvious "attempt to sway the person [Chief archivist] reading the message", and by means of "the use of tone, wording, or intent". A clear text-book contravention of the WP:Canvassing "Campaighning" section I quoted above.

Additionally, the discussion you cited to Chief archivist was still in progress at that time, so it might be argued that you were misrepresenting or giving a biased account of that dispute too (perhaps also to try to influence its outcome), which, incidentally, ended with an amicable consensus being arrived at. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If my aim was to influence Chief Archivist, as Speccy alleges, it failed, He did not take any further part in the discussion and his opposition stands. However, there was another target: Speccy. And it apparently worked a treat on him.

• I know that Speccy watches every edit I make, so there is no way that he would miss the fact that I contacted Chief Archivist.
• When I stated, "Your recalcitrance is a prime example why the rules at MOSNUM need to be tightened on Talk:Dnipropetrovsk, it had no apparent effect.
• At 10:28 on 16 August I told Chief Archivist, "For an object lesson in why MOSNUM advice for non UK non US articles needs to be tightened, please see this discussion at Talk:Dnipropetrovsk#Proposal. Cheers." this was followed by an interesting development:
• At 16:36 on 16 August, Speccy indicated that he was ready to compromise at Talk:Dnipropetrovsk and at 18:44 he made the change himself - carefully picking Mapcrow for the distance. (Mapcrow is miles first.)
• The next day, Speccy made an edit to an Australian article, putting miles first. However, when Archon flipped the display to make it comply with MOSNUM he did not dispute this edit. (He disputed a later edit of mine, but that is a different, though related, story.)
• Quite simply, the threat of having Archon's proposal enacted, has helped pull Speccy more into line. And that is one good reason to enact Archon's proposed wording: Speccy will have less room to game the system. Michael Glass (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply to a false allegation

It appears that Speccy4Eyes has accused me of vote stacking. This is demonstrably false.

• ZICO gave his opinion at 22:46 on 18 August.[2]
• On 00:56 on 19 August I added his name to the list.[3] That is 70 minutes later.
• At 1:26 on 19 August I notified ZICO of this action on his talk page. [4]. That is half an hour later again.

All of this happened after ZICO had stated his opinion. Therefore the allegation of trying to canvass ZICO to influence his vote falls to the ground. What I stated above is all part of the public record that was available to Speccy when he accused me of vote stacking. I also wish to state without any equivocation that I have not had any prior contact with ZICO about this matter (or any other matter that I can recall). I therefore regard Speccy's allegation as an unwarranted smear and I think I have a right to demand an apology.

The same applies with JorisyS. I did not lobby JorisyS for his vote. I asked him to indicate whether the later wording met with his approval. As he did not reply I moved his comment from the support list to the also list. It is fair enough to criticise me for including JorisyS's comment under support but I did respond to this by moving the comment to the also column. However, the allegation that this was lobbying is clearly false. I also wish to state that I have not had any prior contact with JorisyS about this matter or any other matter that I can recall.

Speccy has bandied about the terms dishonest and unfair in regard to others. I think he should examine his own behaviour here. Michael Glass (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Michael Glass, no, I did not link (explicitly or implicitly) the coincidence of ZICO's timely, but rare, appearance with any of your actions. So your allegation of a false allegation is itself a false allegation. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Speccy, I accept your explanation about ZICO. Yes, on a careful reading of what you wrote, you did not explicitly link me with this. On the strength of this I withdraw that allegation and apologise. However, the implication remains, because of your allegation about " coordinating actions in order to drive off or punish perceived "adversaries" which I utterly reject.

• Nevertheless, your allegation of vote stacking remains. I completely reject your allegation that my message to JorisyS was in any way inappropriate. On more than one occasion I have reprinted the question that I asked JorisyS but on no occasion did you explain or justify your allegation that my message to JorisyS was in any way inappropriate. Repeating the same false allegation over and over doesn't make it true.

• You have objected to my counting the opinions of editors. However, I reject the accusation that this was dividing people into opponents. The wording was this: "Archon's proposed amendment has support from" "Also" and "Archon's proposed amendment has been opposed by" This is as neutrally worded as I can make it.

• You have objected to the lists. However, one after another, editors have written in to affirm that they were not misquoted. There was one instance where criticism was justified, and I have dealt with that by removing the comment from those who supported the wording to the Also column. As you know, seven editors have explicitly said Support to Archon's wording, three have explicitly said Oppose and two have made other comments that I have recorded. If the numbers are not to your liking, that's not my fault.

• None of us is perfect, and it's easy to get things wrong. However, making a string of wild accusations is not helpful. Michael Glass (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Date ranges cleanup proposal, part 2

Pursuant to various above conversations, it is proposed that the following changes be made to the MOS:NUM#Date ranges section (which incidentally also simplifies the detailed instructions about en dashes, which are already provided elsewhere in MOS many times):

The existing text:

A pure year–year range is written (as is any range) using an en dash‍—‌– or {{ndash}}‍—‌not a hyphen or slash; this dash is usually unspaced (that is, with no space on either side); and the range's "end" year is usually abbreviated to two digits (though the full closing year is also acceptable):   •   1881–86;  1881–92 (not 1881–6;  1881 – 86) Markup: 1881{{ndash}}86 or 1881–86 Both full years are always given in full in the following cases: birth–death parentheticals: Petrarch (1304–1374) was ...;  not (1304–74) different centuries: 1881–1903;  not 1881–03 starting year before 1000 AD: 355–372 (not 355–72);  95–113;  95–113 AD;  AD 95–113;  982–1066;  2590–2550 BCE;  1011–922 BC Markup: 1011{{ndash}}922{{nbsp}}BC spanning from BC/BCE to AD/CE: 42 BC – 15 AD (note spaced en dash) Markup: 42{{nbsp}}BC{{snd}}15{{nbsp}}AD or 42 BC – 15 AD Notes: [details elided]

Proposed text:

• A pure year–year range is written (as is any range) using an en dash (–, available in the editing tools or with the {{ndash}} template) not a hyphen or slash; this dash is usually unspaced (that is, with no space on either side). The range's end year may be abbreviated to two digits when the result is –13 or greater, and thus cannot be confused with a month abbreviation.

  •   1881–1886 or 1881–86 (not 1881–6, nor   1881 – 86)

Both full years are always given in full in the following cases:

• An abbreviated end year would result in –12 or less: 2002–2010; not 2002–10
• [other examples unchanged]

Notes:

[details elided]

The material below this, in the "Notes" segment, about "a range of sports seasons", etc., would be adjusted to compensate, but in accordance with the separate proposal about this material, above. (Note in particular that a lot of WP:CREEPy text and examples relating to citations can simply be deleted after the change proposed here,) Both proposals should be settled and a final draft of the changes for the whole section prepared, so that these changes are introduced simultaneously.

Text of the Notes segment, for reference:

Notes: Periods straddling two different years, including sports seasons, are generally written with the range notation (2005–06). The slash notation (2005/06) may be used to signify a fiscal year or other special period, if that convention is used in reliable sources. A date range may appear in 2005–2010 format if it is a range of sports seasons. This format is also indicated for date ranges appearing in reference citations if any dates (of publication, access, archival) are in YYYY-MM-DD format, because the range in question could thus be easily mistaken for a yyyy-mm date: XYZ Annual Review, 2005–2006. Accessed 2013-04-07. but not XYZ Annual Review, 2005–06. Accessed 2013-04-07. Another case is in tables (and lists the items of which begin with date ranges) in which some but not all date ranges span a century (sortability of a date column in a table also requires a consistent format for all entries: 2005–07 will unintentionally sort before 2005–2006).

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Why 12 as a limiting value, SMcCandlish? I may have missed previous discussion which gave a good reason for this, but it seems arbitrary, nor do I see any problem with 2001–05. Can you summarize the reasons for this, or link to the discussions where it was proposed and supported, or both, please? DES ^(talk) 16:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  Because 2012-13 cannot possibly be misconstrued as a year-month, since there are only 12 months in a year. --Izno (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Within-article consistency recommendation

A separate proposal is to also include the following clarification:

Notes:

• Avoid mix-and-matching styles in the same article. E.g., if one date range requires 2002–2010 formatting, use 2011–2015, not 2011–15, in the same context.

[other details elided]

The "in the same context" caveat allows for compressed date formats to be used in tables, infoboxes etc., while discouraging conflicting usage in the same block of prose, or in the same series of headings.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

References

• I don't see a good reason for this either. i see no problem with having 2011–15 and 1997–2003 in the same sentance, even, let alone the same article. Please expand on the reasons for this proposal. DES ^(talk) 16:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'm on the fence about this one but am leaning also toward "this change is not necessary". Perhaps lighten the tone of "avoid" in this case. --Izno (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Binary prefixes (new thread moved here from previous discussion)

Binary prefixes should be used as freely as any other standard unit

This continued squabbling over binary prefixes is utterly disturbing and plain contrary to any intellectually meaningful process. Binary prefixes are standards, are being used in thousands of software applications and a growing number of operating systems. Academic publications use them. All standards bodies support them. People who actually deal in modern software matters encounter them frequently and when they do there is no confusion about the meaning of units. The unit are clear, clean, and logical, and distinguishable. The only reason they are being shunned on WP is that there exists a small army of retro-thinking activists and their sock puppets who dominate the discussion, while the world moves on and uses the units around the world. It is time that Wikipedia follows suit and stops the activist minority from policing the content of WP and reverting any usages of the units. The argument that most users of WP are unfamiliar with the units is an unproductive and counter-intelligent argument that should befuddle anyone. WP has an abundance of articles and article chapter that deal with these units that no reader should have any problem of resolving their lack of knowledge, just as they do with any other topic. Kbrose (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I am neutral on the question of what the guideline should say, but as a point of information I certainly "deal in modern software matters" (37 years as a computer engineer, and eight as a consultant in intellectual property for software and computer systems) and I've almost never seen the IEC prefixes used. So cool it with the unfounded aspersions and certainty of belief. Looks really bad. EEng (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, you only have to look for the last few years, ten the most, and apparently you haven't been looking very hard or not at all lately. So cool your experience exaggerations and look what's really happening around the world. This whole controversy is absurd. Kbrose (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No exaggeration, I assure you, and again your presumption is on display. I don't claim that my experience is all-encompasing, and in fact that's my point: no one's is, including yours. Your should remember that. EEng (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The entire familiarity issue is a red herring, and is a stupid reason for banning anything from an Encyclopaedia. How many readers of Wikipedia have ever heard of a Gal, for Heaven's sake? About 0.001 %? Is that a reason for banning its use? Of course not! The Gal, like any other unit, should be used if it helps the articles get their message across clearly and succinctly. The continued ambiguous of "MB" and "GB" adds confusion, not clarity. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

EEng, looking at this diff, how do you square your edit summary with WP:ESDONTS? Not criticising, just curious. --Pete (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I figured that way he'd know for sure I was addressing him. EEng (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Kbrose. There is no good reason for the continued deprecation of IEC prefixes on Wikipedia. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no good reason to use IEC prefixes you mean, as reflected in the massive talk page archive dedicated to this topic. Fnagaton 11:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The IEC prefixes are still hardly used in the real world. Wikipedia doesn't use failed standards just because someone happens to like them. Wikipedia still reflects real world use not what standards bodies try to impose, nor what what some people happen to like. Fnagaton 11:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

First of all, they are standards developed by respected engineers and scientists. Second, they are used in major operating systems and thousands of software applications. Third, many new editors coming to WP have tried to use them—this shows usage too—but are revert on regular basis. Fourth, the application area for them is actually only rather small, in most cases they provide no advantage over using decimal prefixes, so this argument against their use will always be weak. The main reason for their historical use is laziness. How often these units are actually used in the "real world" is actually completely irrelevant, fact is they are used and increasingly so, for good reason. The notion to suppress them is plain censorship for stupid reasons. Kbrose (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft Windows, the most popular desktop OS in the world, uses kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte, terabyte, petabyte etc as binary. The IEC so called "standard" is a failed "standard" because it has not really been accepted and used by the majority of sources in the real world. Wikipedia reflects commonly used real world use, not minority use by failed "standards". Fnagaton 13:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but we need to be able to back up this assertion with facts (see subthread below), since standards-mongers will besiege us on this perennial point unless and until usage changes and we change with it, or IEC gives up and changes. Or we can stop making the assertion of fact about adoption, and simply not provide a rationale, since consensus for MOS to advise what it does is sufficient for it to do so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Leading vs. following vs. denying

Wikipedia follows opinion, it does not lead it. Equally, it should not deny it. Has anyone looked at the interfaces for Azure, Amazon EC2, Google cloud storage? This usage is becoming mainstream in tech. Specs for my company's storage products are now typically quoted in TiB - and we ship more of them than anyone else. Just sayin'. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The IEC prefixes are routinely used by Toshiba to advertise its data storage products and by IBM on its on-line help centre, and there are many other examples in the computer industry. They are also becoming increasingly common in scientific publications. But for me the most important point is - always has been - that the existing guidelines are counterproductive because they encourage ambiguity. This point is completely ignored by the existing MOSNUM wording, which denies WP editors the use of a simple and powerful disambiguation tool that is accepted by all major standards bodies. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Google price their storage in binary GB and TB. Reliable sources mostly disambiguate by defining the number of bytes not by using IEC. So IEC are not a powerful disambiguation tool. Glider87 (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have also noticed slowly increasing usage of IEC in various contexts – it's hardly surprising that a very new standard takes time to enjoy wide acceptance. SI is significantly older than IEC binary, and its usage is patchy in many areas. It's difficult, however, to gauge in an objective manner exactly how widely used the IEC notation is, so I am not sure how prescriptive we can be at MOSNUM about its use on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this topic has attracted a few "deniers" (to use your term) who refuse to allow the consensus to move in a direction they disapprove of; they are certainly not helping. I have no idea why they persist (maybe they just dislike the IEC standard for some reason), but I am certainly not the only one who finds it tiresome and obnoxious. My own opinion is that we need to monitor real-world usage closely and be responsive to it, but it is in no way a legitimate purpose of MOSNUM to "outlaw" IEC binary throughout the encyclopedia. That's an absurd and pointless over-reaction.

As for the argument above that Google's pricing practices (or the obvious fact that we could just state the number of bytes explicitly) implying that IEC is never useful for disambiguation, that's a total non sequitur, sorry. Archon 2488 (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I am still against changing the guidelines; use, even in technical publications is spotty. I'll take your word that it's not "rare", but it certainly isn't common.

Regardless of whether the binary units are "allowed", I also think they need to follow the rules in MOS:CONVERSIONS as non-metric, and unfamiliar, units. The parenthetical can be either the exact value

4 TiB (4 × 1024⁴), or a conversion

4 TiB (4.4 TB), with a raw TiB

4 TiB not being allowed without explanation, even if the guidelines are changed to encourage use of IEC/ISO/ISQ units.

4 TiB is possible under those guidelines, if changed.

Furthermore, we need to look at the history of the use of IEC binary prefixes on Wikipedia. Early in the life of Wikipedia, a group of editors (possibly, a single editor) edited this guideline to require their use, regardless of the fact that they were not yet being used outside of the standards documents. Years later, in a possible overreaction, a consensus was established that they should not be used, except in articles about the prefixes or when used in the sources. (The June 2008ish discussion pointed to by the footnote to the MOS actually does say that they should not be used on Wikipedia because they are not used in the real world. Whether there was consensus to that is unclear.) Common use in the field of the article was added later (possibly without consensus; I wasn't watching at the time). I'm almost sure the fourth bullet point (that they can be used if both binary and decimal prefixes are used, and other methods of disambiguation are impractical) was added without consensus. We cannot ignore the fact that Windows reports memory use with the binary JEDEC-like prefix. That implies that the binary use that some would want to deprecate is not at all rare in the real world. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Why I'm trying to reconstruct the history when I wasn't there for most of it is another matter. However, the history is important. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin Thank you for summarizing the history. I don't disagree with the facts you have just presented. We do differ in opinion though. Mine is that the present wording encourages ambiguity and for that reason is long overdue an overhaul. What I would like to see is a clear statement that ambiguity is deprecated (with exceptions, where appropriate), and a way ahead found that encourages disambiguation. My proposal (made in 2008, and completely ignored by Headbomb and the others when they claimed consensus for their preferred version) was to permit disambiguation using IEC prefixes as an intermediate step to footnotes - footnotes being the preferred solution accepted by all concerned, but requiring far more effort than these simple prefixes. That option (IEC prefixes as stepping stone) is worth exploring now, because it was not taken seriously then, by editors who should have aknown better. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Leading or following is not the primary issue. The problem at a hand is the need for disambiguation. Two units have the same name and the reader must be informed as to which is meant this time. So as proposed above one might take the same approach as for conversions. State one unit and in brackets indicate the other one. In this specific case the two units could have the same spelling, so a qualifier would be needed. Examples:

• a memory chip of 512 MiB (described as 512 MB)
• a memory chip described as 512 MB (512 MiB)
• a disk of 512MB (488 MiB)

This usage would show that an editor has done an interpretation and still allows verification with sources. Both proponents would see their preferred units. For readers unfamiliar with MiB, the MiB could be linked the first time in an article.−Woodstone (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I, personally, would be happy to allow the IEC units to appear in brackets, at least. I do not have the stomach for a discussion about which order the decimal/binary units need to come in. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I would support either of Woodstone's or Archon 2488's suggestions. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I am traveling so I have not commented on the current discussion. I don't see how using a unit unfamiliar to most Wikipedia readers will reduce ambiguity. Providing a blue link to teach readers about the benefits of MiB and GiB is hijacking Wikipedia to promote a point of view.

The JEDEC committees are made up of companies that make or use semiconductors and they work together to standardize products. They have decided that MB, GB, and TB are the binary units to be used with solid state memory. A few people here on Wikipedia are promoting a footnote in the JEDEC dictionary that mentions MiB, GiB and TiB as proof that JEDIC has adopted the IEC binary prefixes. This is an extreme (outrageous) case of undue weight. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You miss the point. Whatever the industry defines for their case, the terms MB and GB still have two meanings. A casual reader will not know which one is meant in a specific case. Therefore a disambiguation is needed. One of the simplest ways to achieve that is to add an unambiguous unit in parentheses. −Woodstone (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. You are advocating using a terminology unknown by at least 95% of Wikipedia readers. How does that help? You might as well add the value in hexadecimal. Those readers who know about the IEC binary prefixes already know how to read the correct value. The IEC binary prefixes have been around for 15 to 20 years and are still rarely used. You know this because when some advocate finds an occurrence in an obscure technical paper they announce that company X uses the prefixes and it is now time for Wikipedia to fall inline. Every semiconductor memory sold today uses the customary units. When the memory is used in a solid state disk, it uses the decimal value just like regular spinning disk. Using obscure terms does not reduce ambiguity. Wikipedia follows the real world and the real world has not yet embraced the IEC binary prefixes. --SWTPC6800 (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The point of discussion here has never been whether JEDEC promotes the binary prefixes. The blocked socks tried to use the JEDEC documents to prove that JEDEC defines the binary interpretation for the metric prefixes k, M, G, and T, and therefore should stand on equal footing. JEDEC doesn't promote anything, frankly, they are not a standards organization. They follow the standards organizations, and they explicitly discuss the ambiguity in the document and refer to the binary prefixes as a possible resolution. They also state that their dictionary presents the binary meaning of the metric prefixes for reasons of history in the industry. The point however is that the binary prefixes are increasingly used in applications (there must be thousands), operating systems, documentation, even in product specifications. The industry trend is unmistakable. Semiconductor manufacturers do not set standards, and what they use is their business, and for them there is little reason to change. You can't make decimal multiples of memory cells very efficiently. This doesn't mean that the rest of the world should continue this practice and remain ambiguous. The notion that only few people know them is the most idiotic argument in education, because it basically says one shouldn't use high-level English so that even 1st graders can understand the writing. Virtually every use of units on WP is augmented with links to the definition of those units, so people can quickly look them up. Are you advocating that WP shouldn't be using units like neper, or atomic units, or barns, or many others, because they are not familiar to readers? Where does this kind of censorship end? Should we have article about obscure topics that virtually only experts can really appreciate? Nobody is advocating wholesale-conversion to binary prefixes, every reasonable editor here appears to be understanding the history, and I don't see anyone trying to cover that up. The real world indeed is converting to unambiguous unit, but as usual, it takes time. Not all places have even embraced the SI yet fully. Kbrose (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Your claim that JEDEC is not a standards organization is absurd. Here is a quote from the JEDEC website

"JEDEC is accredited by ANSI and maintains liaisons with numerous standards bodies throughout the world." ANSI thinks they are a standards organization.

Virtually every semiconductor memory device ever made has followed a JEDEC standard. The US government allows the semiconductor industry to agree on design and packaging issue at JEDEC meetings. If JEDEC was not a standards organization this would be an antitrust issue. Every JEDEC meeting starts with reading of the Antitrust Guidelines. You can't discuss pricing, inventory, customers, etc.

JEDEC has two types of committees, service and product. The service committees deal with industry wide standards such as package outlines, terms and definitions, government standards, and international standards. JC-10 authored the JEDEC dictionary that is so popular here on Wikipedia. (There is a fixation on a footnote.) The product committees focus on the technical standards for actual products. All of the current memory standards from JC-42 use the customary binary units. A typical memory standard is JESD209-4 "Low Power Double Data Rate 4" (LPDDR4), a table on page 11 lists the memory capacity from 4Gb to 32Gb. Here is an example "16Gb has 17,179,869,184 bits". -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You are still missing the point. The issue raised here is not what industry does or does not do, but about how to report what it does here on Wikipedia. The present guideline encourages ambiguity, resulting in statements like the one I mentioned at Blue Waters. You have posted several replies here, but not answered, or even addressed my question about what the meaning of that ambiguous statement, so I will pose a different question. Do you agree the statement is ambiguous, and if so, is that ambiguity acceptable? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

In the computer world there are two meanings for units like KB, MB and GB. Computer memory has used the binary meaning for over 50 years while disk/tape storage has used the decimal meaning. The manufactures, trade press and users have not found this to be a significant problem. The major standards organization for semiconductors, JEDEC, uses the binary meanings for semiconductor memory. A notable exception is for when the memory is used in solid state disk, the decimal meaning is used there. The IEC binary prefixes were proposed around 25 years ago to solve this "problem". The real world has ignored this "solution". The trade press, the semiconductor industry, equipment suppliers, and the user communities have not adopted the IEC binary prefixes. Wikipedia needs to follow the computer industry's reliable sources and the overwhelming majority has ignored the IEC binary prefixes. It doesn't matter that a random technical article or two uses IEC binary prefixes. There has been a decade long effort to get Wikipedia to promote the IEC binary prefixes. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a very indirect answer to my question. You state that both definitions are used, which I interpret as an acknowledgement of the ambiguity. You also say "The manufactures, trade press and users have not found this to be a significant problem", and mock the IEC standard by putting the words "problem" and "solution" in brackets (as if the former does not exist from which one could conclude that the latter was unnecessary) which I interpret as meaning you consider the ambiguity an acceptable one. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It helps because it gives the reader the chance to read up the correct meaning, if he or she wishes to do so. If the explanation is not given the reader is denied that choice. You state that "those readers who know about the IEC binary prefixes already know how to read the correct value". On what evidence do you base this assertion? And even if it were correct (and it is not, for there is a counter-example typing this post) how does that possibly help those who do not know about IEC binary prefixes? The disambiguation is needed for both sets of readers.

Let's take a specific example: I have just edited Blue Waters, which includes the sentence "It has 1.5 PB of memory, 25 PB of disk storage, and up to 500 PB of tape storage." Can you tell us how to interpret this statement? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Getting those units wrong would be a real peta-flop, that would be an error of almost 13%, and a likely budget gap of a few million dollars. Kbrose (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Does and should the present guideline encourage disambiguation?

Present wording (of "Quantities of bytes and bits")

In quantities of bits and bytes, the prefixes kilo (symbol k or K), mega (M), giga (G), tera (T), etc. are ambiguous. They may be based on a decimal system (like the standard SI prefixes), meaning 10³, 10⁶, 10⁹, 10¹², etc., or they may be based on a binary system, meaning 2¹⁰, 2²⁰, 2³⁰, 2⁴⁰, etc. The binary meanings are more commonly used in relation to solid-state memory (such as RAM), while the decimal meanings are more common for data transmission rates, disk storage and in theoretical calculations in modern academic textbooks.

Follow these recommendations when using these prefixes in Wikipedia articles:

• Following the SI standard, a lower-case k should be used for "kilo-" whenever it means 1000 in computing contexts, whereas a capital K should be used instead to indicate the binary prefix for 1024 according to JEDEC. (If, under the exceptions detailed further below, the article otherwise uses IEC prefixes for binary units, use Ki instead).
• Do not assume that the binary or decimal meaning of prefixes will be obvious to everyone. Explicitly specify the meaning of k and K as well as the primary meaning of M, G, T, etc. in an article ({{BDprefix}} is a convenient helper). Consistency within each article is desirable, but the need for consistency may be balanced with other considerations.
• The definition most relevant to the article should be chosen as primary for that article, e.g. specify a binary definition in an article on RAM, decimal definition in an article on hard drives, bit rates, and a binary definition for Windows file sizes, despite files usually being stored on hard drives.
• Where consistency is not possible, specify wherever there is a deviation from the primary definition.
• Disambiguation should be shown in bytes or bits, with clear indication of whether in binary or decimal base. There is no preference in the way to indicate the number of bytes and bits, but the notation style should be consistent within an article. Acceptable examples include:

  •  A 64 MB (64 × 1024²-byte) video card and a 100 GB (100 × 1000³-byte) hard drive

  •  A 64 MB (64 × 2²⁰-byte) video card and a 100 GB (100 × 10⁹-byte) hard drive

  •  A 64 MB (67,108,864-byte) video card and a 100 GB (100,000,000,000-byte) hard drive

• Avoid inconsistent combinations such as A 64 MB (67,108,864-byte) video card and a 100 GB (100 × 1000³-byte) hard drive. Footnotes, such as those seen in Power Macintosh 5500, may be used for disambiguation.
• Unless explicitly stated otherwise, one byte is eight bits (see History of byte).

The IEC prefixes kibi-, mebi-, gibi-, etc. (symbols Ki, Mi, Gi, etc.) are generally not to be used except:

• when the majority of cited sources on the article topic use IEC prefixes,
• in a direct quote using the IEC prefixes,
• when explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes,
• in articles in which both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary, or in which converting all quantities to one or the other type would be misleading or lose necessary precision, or declaring the actual meaning of a unit on each use would be impractical.

References

Theses

I'd like to establish whether there is consensus for whether disambiguation is necessary or desirable. To this end, please take a look at the present wording of the guideline under discussion (above) and add agree/disagree to the theses (below) as you consider appropriate, with reasons. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The present guideline provides sufficient encouragement to disambiguate. Change is needed.

• Disagree. There is some encouragement but it is ineffective. To give but a small selection of examples of wholesale ambiguity, see "1.5 PB of memory, 25 PB of disk storage, and up to 500 PB of tape storage", "2 GB DDR4 DRAM", "16 MB" partition size and "1.44 MB" diskettes, "10 MB daughter embedded DRAM (at 256Gbit/s)", "maximum memory ... 512 TB" and "16 GB" memory, "512 GB/s" system memory B/W and "16 GB/s" memory B/W per CPU. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree given that these issues with ambiguous decimal/binary units are recurrent (although I am confused by the idea that the existing guidance is enough, but we should change it; is that even coherent?). It is possible in principle to disambiguate by using explicit byte counts, but in practice this is rarely done, even when disambiguation is necessary. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree. The proposed way to disambiguate is so unwieldy that it is unlikely to be followed.−Woodstone (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The present guideline provides sufficient encouragement to disambiguate. No change is needed.

• Strongly disagree. There are many articles that use the symbols "MB", "GB", "TB", etc with more than one meaning in the same article. Sometimes even in the same sentence. How is the reader supposed to know which meaning is intended? Change is needed to encourage disambiguation. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree – same argument as my comment immediately above. There isn't currently enough disambiguation in this context, and the fact that the IEC units are relatively unfamiliar does not imply that they should never be used (parsecs? inverse femtobarns? GeV/c²?). They are not something that Wikipedians have just made up, and they are defined by an independent body. Listing technical publications which do and do not use them is rarely very enlightening. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Agree. The existing guidelines would be adequate if followed, although we need some guidelines on how to report MBs when we have no idea which is intended. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree. The proposed way to disambiguate is so unwieldy that it is unlikely to be followed. A simpler way of disambiguation should be proposed.−Woodstone (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The present guideline provides insufficient encouragement to disambiguate. Change is needed.

• Agree. See above for reasoning. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Agree – I think that the Wikipedia house style should aim for lack of ambiguity. There is no objective reason for an encyclopedia-wide requirement not to use IEC. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree. There is no objective reason why we should not restrict use of IEC units to articles where used in the sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Agree. Disambiguation should be encouraged or even required and a simpler way to disambiguate should be proposed. −Woodstone (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The present guideline provides insufficient encouragement to disambiguate. No change is needed.

• Disagree. See above for reasoning. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree by default. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree. Disambiguation should be encouraged or even required. −Woodstone (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

@Arthur Rubin The fact is that the guidelines are not followed. Why do you think that is? Regardless of the cause, a possible solution is to make them easier to follow. I made a proposal for doing so in 2008, and that proposal was ignored by editors who should have known better. I repeated it again recently. What are the objections to my proposal? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, your 2008 was even more contrary to the general unit guidelines than the current binary unit guidelines. I don't see it as an improvement, but I could accept increased use of the IEC units provided that they are treated as unfamiliar non-metric units, so they are explained at each occurrence in articles (except those about the units, themselves). Alternatively, I would like to see the fourth case in which IEC units may be used tightened, to explain that other forms of disambiguation are allowable. I cannot imagine a legitimate case in which "declaring the actual meaning on each use would be impractical", and have difficulty imagining a case in which "converting all quantities to one or the other type would be misleading or lose necessary precision" if the parenthetical explanations were used. If you can point to the discussion where that was added, or point to an example article where it is necessary for those reasons, I would appreciate it. Regardless of whether the IEC units are "rarely used", they ate still unfamiliar non-metric units, and should be treated as such. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Overview of date formatting guidelines

Following the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 152 § Interaction between DATEFORMAT guidelines §§ Essay that petered out, I humbly suggest the following hatnote under the heading for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Chronological items §§ Dates, months and years §§§ Formats:

Formats

See also: Wikipedia:Overview of date formatting guidelines

Thoughts? —sroc 💬 07:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think a "Hitchhiker's guide to date formats", to help editors tie together the various date-format advice scattered here and there, fills a niche. EEng (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Such a link seems dubious. To the extent your essay is just a restatement of the guideline it adds nothing new, and there is not point for the link. To the extent that it goes beyond a mere restatement and strengthens a particular interpretation, but without acknowledging that strengthening ("clarification"), linking it into the offical guideline amounts to a covert modification of the MOS. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

And we-rrrre off! EEng (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope not. Sroc asked for thoughts, and I have provided them. I think he will understand that I am not trying to instigate a re-argument of what the proper interpretation should be. He may understand why I think his essay is not the kind of "Hitchhiker's Guide" you contemplate, and why I think a link would be improper. He may think otherwise, in which case we can agree to disagree. He may even have doubts, in which case I might be able to help resolve some aspects. We will see. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I totally see JJ's point here in blurring the lines between guideline and essay. The only I reason I brought it up is because others had suggested (in the earlier discussion) incorporating the essay into the guidelines somehow and I thought this might be a simple way to do so, but I'm happy to let sleeping dogs lie. At least I hope the essay serves as a useful point of reference to show my understanding of the interaction between the listed provisions—an understanding shared by others, but not purporting to be a proper guideline—as it may be a useful re-statement to link in discussions from time to time, whether others use it or not. —sroc 💬 13:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Reasonable Date Format Alternative

I recently happened upon the the fact that AWB semi-automatically corrects the date format "[month] of [year]" (e.g. "August of 2015") to "[month] [year]," as per the Wikipedia Manual of Style. However, I find this prescription to be quite perplexing. I am not familiar with any major English-language style guide that explicitly proscribes the aforementioned format. Rather, it is a subjective decision by writers to adopt a particular style of date format (within the confines of one's chosen guide). Consequently, establishing normative rules that amount to ones inscribed in stone without any counterpart in unaffiliated style guides runs antithetical to the free and open nature of Wikipedia. I submit that the MoS rules ought to be modified so as to allow a "[month] of [year]" format. Ergo Sum 04:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says: "The Manual of Style documents Wikipedia's house style. Its goal is to make using Wikipedia easier and more intuitive by promoting clarity and cohesion, while helping editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting." I support consistency.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It also ends useless arguing over trivial variations. Having said that, it goddam well better be that AWB requires the human editor to review and approve this kind of change. I'm sick and tired of mindless scripts "fixing" things like this inside quotes and so on. EEng (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@EEng I do not know how AWB operates with respect to this issue as I am not a user of it, though I can attest to the fact that I have observed on several occasions edits to replace this date format via AWB. However, I do agree with your dissatisfaction with the automation of controversial actions. Ergo Sum 05:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@EEng AWB is a semi-automated editing assistant where the user is supposed to review all the changes before saving. The user can skip any suggested changes that shouldn't be done. The AWB user is just as responsible for their edits as any other Wikipedia editor. I'm not sure what you mean about fixing inside quotes, but there are guidelines related to that, and if an AWB user is adjusting something to meet the guidelines, they aren't misusing the tool. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wavelength Surely, you do not mean to suggest that consistency and constraint to whatever mode of consistency is arbitrarily chosen is paramount to freedom of participation in the richness of the English language, as that would truly be a sad day for all those who cherish linguistic propriety. The date format that I described in my original comment fails no criterion listed in your quotation of the manual of style other than the single, subjective notion of consistency (which may never be wholly realized, seeing as there are multiple "acceptable" formats in the Manual of Style). The format cannot be said to be unintuitive, unclear, non-cohesive, or imprecise. Considering that Wikipedia fundamentally is an open and free project (and patently exclusive of an oligarchic or technocratic elite), evaluation and, perhaps more importantly, re-evaluation of all functionally binding rules is crucial. I, too, support consistency but not at the expense of the ability to utilize the various components of proper English. Therefore, re-evaluation of the proscription on this date format ought to be taken under serious consideration by the Wikipedia community. Ergo Sum 05:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Gracious! The polysyllabification! Look, I can't tell you not to make an argument for changing the guideline to allow "in [month] of [year]". But you need to understand that these things have been hashed over endlessly in the past‍—‌for some reasons date formats induce a peculiarly treatment-resistant form of monomania‍—‌and part of the point of MOS is to end such wastes of time. Your reasons will need to be overwhelmingly compelling or no one's going to give this a second look. "This other format's just as good, so why discriminate?" isn't going to be enough. EEng (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum What EEng said (there's a very high bar to change this guideline), and while I agree that the English language is rich and that the Wikipedia is an open and free project, it is also a work. In a work, you will normally expect to see a style that is followed consistently. Now, in some cases, like citations, we allow for several approaches based on what various disciplines are accustomed to. But something like month-year formatting is very basic. For the sake of editors and readers, we all (should) know what to expect in this case. And that's even though "in month of year" is allowed in the broader English language. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I won't attempt to forge a consensus as I simply do not have the necessary time to do so. However, I feel compelled to say that there is something very wrong when there is such an arduous obstacle that you reference to simply allow for the utilization of portions of a language that are commonplace. I understand the need for consensus and "consistency," but when that consistency precludes any variation in such a manner that is an anomaly among the thousands of English style guides based on expert input of bygone times and the present, the objective transforms from consistency into speech constriction. I sincerely hope that such an objective is not the philosophical underpinning of the present Wikipedia Manual of Style. Ergo Sum 18:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You said that already. Ideally, a guideline is added to MOS when...

• 1. There is a need for project-wide consistency (e.g. "professional look" issues such as consistent typography, layout, etc.‍—‌things which, if inconsistent, would be noticeably annoying or confusing to reader); OR
• 2. Editor time has, and continues to be, spent litigating the same issue over and over, on numerous articles, either

• (a) with generally the same result (so we might as well just memorialize that result, and save all the future arguing), or
• (b) with different results in different cases, but with reason to believe the differences are arbitrary, and not worth all the arguing‍—‌a final decision on one arbitrary choice, though an intrusion on the general principle that decisions on each article should be made on the Talk page of that article, is worth making in light of the large amount of editor time saved.

Or as Picasso (or someone‍—‌probably lots of people) said, "Form is liberating." EEng (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice on arabic vs. roman vs. spelled-out numbers for series and sequences

At WT:MOSTM it's been pointed out that we don't have a default. WP:COMMONNAME will tell us how to title the article (it's World War II, not World War 2, World War Two, or Second World War for this reason; titles of published works tell us just by looking at the published title; and regnal numbers are conventionally roman; etc.), this does not tell us what to do by default in running prose when sources are not consistent on a particular case.

I propose adding the following:

Series and sequences

When reliable sources are not consistent in their usage of the designation of things in a series or sequence, generally default to using a spelled-out, leading ordinal number: in the seventh grade. Where this is part of the proper name of something, it is capitalized: the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change. Default to trailing arabic numerals for abbreviated forms, but follow the majority of reliable sources' usage for a given case of abbreviation (e.g., the somewhat idiosyncratically hyphenated ICCC-10 for the previously mentioned conference). Numbers of volumes, episodes, sequels, and the like default to arabic numerals (e.g., vol. 7 and season 3), unless given in roman numerals by the published work to which they pertain, consistently across editions/releases (as in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope). Events are usually best distinguished by date (e.g., Harlem riot of 1964 or the 1964 Harlem riot), even if they also have formally numbered names (e.g. Super Bowl XLIX), unless the year is also given or is clear in the context. (See also § Regnal numbers.)

I think that should cover at least most of what needs to be spelled out, and will consolidate it in one place.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup of messy coding

I've done a big cleanup of the increasingly messy and palimpsestous coding of this page, e.g. to distinguish semantic emphasis vs. conventional typographic italics in both usage and instructions; proper use of markup like <code>...</code> and {{var}}; using {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {[tlx|xtn}} consistently and as-intended; removed confusing, unnecessary emphasis or emphasis-like abuse of italics; consistent formatting of cross-references as such with {{crossref}}; misc. other cleanup tweaks. Converted the HTML comment at the top about such formatting into an easy-reading checklist.

Please do not mass-revert if you don't understand, or disagree with, something; just change the part you're objecting to or ask me to do so so. This was about 3.5 hours of work.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)