Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Rfc: Is YYYY-MM an acceptable date format? Part 4

Continuing on from Part 2 and Part 3 above, I will restate it so that contributors brought in for the RFC can see the problem.

The recent (29 Nov 2013) banning of the yyyy-mm format brings about a conflict between parts of MOS but also highlights that the conflict was waiting in the wings as an unknown consequence. The guidelines state:

1. WP:DATEFORMAT - various formats with spelt out months are allowed (no problem). yyyy-mm-dd (all numbers) is allowed in tables, references and similar places where conciseness is needed. No mention of year and month combos (ie no day of month) at all. It points to Wikipedia:Citing Sources § Citation style, which explicitly allows yyyy-mm-dd.
2. WP:BADDATEFORMAT - lists various bad formats and the recommended replacement. yyyy-mm was unobtrusively added to the list on 29 Nov 2013 as a single line in a table with no reasoning or rationale given.
3. MOS:DATEUNIFY - states that only a single format is to be used within an article (some reading between the lines allows the main text to use spelt out months and tables/references/etc to use yyyy-mm-dd.

Articles are free to use references in the yyyy-mm-dd format. This is explicitly allowed. The conflict comes when we get a reference that has only year and month (typical of magazine references). Since BADDATEFORMAT disallows yyyy-mm, we must replace it with a spelt out format such as Dec 2013. But then this causes a conflict with DATEUNIFY, which forces us to replace each and every reference with a spelt out format. In effect, that single line disallowing yyyy-mm means that every article using yyyy-mm-dd in references has a very good probability of being forced to change to a spelt out format. That's a wide ranging effect for a single sentence fragment with no rationale given in the guideline. The rationale given on the talk page is that it can be confused with the date ranges like 2002-03 (ie from 2002 to 2003).

The talk page discussion was only among a small set of contributors over a short period of time, so the repercussions were not obvious and were not thrashed out. After two months of looking for acceptable solutions, none of the solutions presented in Part 2 found consensus and only the following were found to have any followers:

1. Ban yyyy-mm-dd altogether. Some editors were very much in favour of this and some were very much against it. Unlikely to gain consensus.
2. Ban yyyy-mm but allow yyyy-mm-dd. Needs an explanation that all yyyy-mm-dd references are allowed but will need to be changed to spelt out dates (eg 7 January 2012 or January 7, 2012) as soon as the first year+month combo is added.
3. Allow yyyy-mm and hope that readers can use context to understand that it is year and month, not a year range.

Since the December 2013 addition of the banning of yyyy-mm triggered the conflict, I will hide that in the guideline until a result is found.  Stepho  talk  23:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Note: 'Support' and 'Oppose' don't work for a 3 way choice; please specify 'Ban yyyy-mm-dd', 'Ban yyyy-mm' or 'Context'

• Context Most readers that care enough about the date can figure it out without too much stress.  Stepho  talk  23:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Ban yyyy-mm. A reader may not bring the entire article to the library when following up a citation; (s)he may just write down what the reader thinks the date means, for example, write 2010-11 as Nov. 2010. When the issue written down does not exist, reader may have difficulty figuring out the reason for the error. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Ban yyyy-mm. We are supposed to be writing articles which are clear and unambiguous, this is not clear and is certainly not unambiguous. People should not have to read the MOS to find out the meaning of something in an article it should be obvious. For similar reasons I would also support a Ban yyyy-mm-dd. Keith D (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Ban yyyy-mm. and any format where the month is not clear and unambiguously represented by its proper name (and not some notional number) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Ban yyyy-mm. It's just too ambiguous and prone to confusion with yyyy-yy (a year range). I can see why people are opposed to yyyy-mm-dd as needing to be interpreted and as more ambiguous than dd mmm yyyy, but I can't work up adequate passion against it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• What is the problem that needs to be solved?  As per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Ranges, yyyy–yy uses an en dash.  I checked http://reftag.appspot.com/, and curiously it has two different modes (possibly a bug) when asked to convert July 2009 into y-m-d format.  One is "July 2009" and the other is "2009-07".  I also recall contexts in which software deems "July 2009" to occur on the first day of the month.  Since it doesn't seem to be clear, I'd recommend specifying that mmm yyyy format is acceptable in the yyyy-mm-dd context.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• YYYY-yy should be banned, it causes confusion with YYYY-MM, and that format is used in the world at large. We shouldn't engender confusion just because we are Wikipedia. We can avoid confusion by using YYYY-YYYY. -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Context – If the area in question previously uses YYYY-MM-DD especially, or if the prose speaks of months not year-ranges, the reader will be able to infer the correct meaning. If anything should be banned, it would be YYYY–YY, which is purposeless and easily avoided by YYYY–YYYY. Also en dashes are not hyphens. startswithj (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• Allow YYYY-MM and ban YYYY-YY. Year ranges should not be using a hyphen, anyway. YYYY-MM is the standard way of representing years and months, as specified by the ISO 8601 international standard, and its national variants. In the case of conflicts, YYYY-MM and YYYY-MM-DD date formats should be preferred. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua Issac: Year ranges are already supposed to use an endash, not a hyphen (though I don't think this does enough to resolve the ambiguity). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Allow YYYY-MM and ban YYYY-YY. I am in agreement with Joshua Issac. We should allow YYYY-MM and ban YYYY-YY. I also agree with AlanM1 that the use of a en-dash does not do enough to resolve ambiguity. Those who need to do a year range should spell the full four digit year YYYY–YYYY and preferably use an en-dash. This seems dis-ambiguous enough as there are no four digit months. Zell Faze (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Context While YYYY-MM is not ideal in most places, in a table that has a row for each month of several years, it makes sense, and avoids the burden of a hidden sort key. For clarity, I'd add "(YYYY-MM)" in the header. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Context The immediately preceding is logical. So "Allow YYYY-MM (allowed particularly within tabular / sorting settings, and disfavored in "open text" settings) and ban YYYY-YY (for which there is no "utility" value)" is also logical. The overall logic is driven by the ability to autosort descending hierarchicals. Conversely, banning YYYY-MM as a conceptual step toward banning YYYY-MM-DD (or YYYMMDD) is counterproductive prejudice, and also indirectly raises the irresolvable: MM-DD-YYYY versus DD-MM-YYYY. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• The most likely place for the problem to occur is in references. A date like 2003-08 is unlikely to mean a publication covering multiple years. A date like 2003-04 could mean April 2003 or an anniversary issue covering 2003-2004 but it is usually clear from the context which it is. The majority of readers won't care anyway and for the few that want to look it up it will become obvious quite quickly. For the few times where it does represent a problem (eg the magazine had both an April 2003 issue and a 2003-2004 anniversary issue), then that article can choose one of the other date formats.  Stepho  talk  23:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• I know this is a personal opinion, but to my eye, "2003-08" just looks like a typo. My eye comes to a complete halt and my brain is forced to wonder if someone simply made a mistake of some sort. Did they mean "2003-04"? "2007-08"? Did they forget the day (or the second half of the year) in a YYYY-MM-DD date, like "2001-03-08"? I don't have a grammar or style argument here, it's just a visceral thing that happens when I encounter one of these odd creatures. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

(This appears to be the freshest part of the discussions, feel free to move my comment to a better place.) Thanks to Trappist_the_monk for the pointer on Category talk:CS1 errors: dates, I haven't looked into any MOS pages for ages, replacing GB by GiBi gibberish would annoy me; and some ISO "standards" are certainly crap. However, RFC 3339 and the 1997-09 note published by the W3C are no nonsense, and it's the job of the MediaWiki software to display YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY-MM in the form chosen in the preferences or some default chosen by the site admins for editors without an account or preferring to edit without logging in. It's not the job of MOS guidelines. My 0,02€ –Be..anyone (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Date autoformatting has been resoundingly rejected by the community for many reasons, see footnote 7 of MOSNUM. One of the reasons is you can't get the commas right. Consider "the meeting is set for July 22, 2014, at Grand Central Terminal." If "22 July 2014" is substituted for "July 22, 2014" there will be an incorrect comma. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What is incorrect about the comma in the clause "the meeting is set for 22 July 2014, at Grand Central Terminal"? --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Seems like the yyyy-mm-dd haters have all chimed in for 'Ban yyyy-mm'. So be it. Now we are back to where we were 2 months ago. What do we do when we want to add a month magazine as a reference in an article chock full of yyyy-mm-dd references? Since yyyy-mm is not allowed then we are forced to use mmm yyyy. MOS:DATEUNIFY then forces us to change each and every other reference over to a spelt out form. That's a rather radical change that is not obvious from the current text of the guideline. Two solutions are:
  • Add text in the guideline to make it clear that yyyy-mm-dd dates are okay only until the first year+month reference is added, then they become illegal due to MOS:DATEUNIFY.
  • Relax MOS:DATEUNIFY so that July 2006 and 2006-06-01 can sit side-by-side.

Both of these solutions were proposed in Part 2 and neither found favour. But since yyyy-mm is banned, we have to select one of them.  Stepho  talk  23:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

History

Our use of YYYY-MM-DD dates is pretty much an accident. In the early days of Wikipedia, the concept was to use YYYY-MM-DD dates and link them— the user date preference would then show them in the users desired format. As early as 2006, it was realized that readers who were not logged in would see dates in the YYYY-MM-DD format. In late 2008, the consensus was to stop linking dates— dates were delinked and sometimes reformatted, but no changes to the MoS was made as to formats. There have been several discussions about YYYY-MM-DD date formatting over the years, with little or no result.

For discussions on date formats, mainly in the context of citation templates, see User:Gadget850/FAQ/YYYY-MM-DD dates. --  Gadget850 ^talk 20:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What exacly is a "UK engineering-related article"

Is it simply any article about any UK subject where one or two of the paragraphs in the article discuss the engineering aspect of the broader topic? I ask because I believe it is unclear and open to misinterpretation. An example article which I have been involved in, and where this is the cause of unrest, is High Speed 2, where very little of the 15 sections is engineering-related, yet that MOSUM clause has been invoked. Passy2 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• It seems that HS2 started life using Imperial, so I don't think it would be appropriate to flip the units into metric, being a violation of WP:RETAIN. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think WP:RETAIN means use the variety of English the article started with, unless it has strong ties to a particular English-speaking country. The first version didn't contain any language that would vary between American and British English; the current version uses British English. So WP:TIES applies rather that WP:RETAIN. But neither of these is intended to distinguish among English as written by British engineers vs. English as written by British travelers, or anything of the sort. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that WP:RETAIN is not relevant here. Keeping whatever units the original author decided on (basically, a coin toss) is not constructive or reasonable. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

NB Passy2 is a suspected sockpuppet of the banned user, DeFacto. It has been blocked indefinitely. See [1]Michael Glass (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Doesn't anyone here know what is meant by the term, and whether it was meant to include ALL articles which mention an engineering project anywhere amongst their content? I suspect that this clause is being widely gamed, and used as an excuse by some editors who "prefer the metric system" to fully metrify/metricate UK-related articles against the spirit of these guidelines. For that reason, I propose either removing the exception on engineering related articles or tightening it to define just how much engineering content an engineering-related article is expected to have. Passy2 (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The argument that the HS2 article isn't "sufficiently engineering-related" because not all of it is about engineering strikes me as committing the fallacy of division. It is in any case the only article on Wikipedia about what is indisputedly an engineering-related topic. Or should we venture into angels-on-pinheads territory and say that certain articles on engineering-related topics are not, in fact, engineering-related? What would be the point of this? "Give precedence to the original units" is a generally-sensible rule, it was all that came out of the last unpleasant imperial/metric discussion, and I have not argued against the use of imperial where there is a genuine historical warrant for it. Or perhaps we should berate modern engineers for "preferring the metric system" and putting signs like this all over things that, for apparently political reasons, we are not allowed to call engineering projects, and are not allowed to describe in terms of those same metric units? Does Wikipedia "know better" than the engineers which system of units to use? I'm searching in vain for a rational argument here. At what point does it become acceptable to ignore the units that are actually used in the real world, and impose our own bizarre harlequin mixture of metric and imperial, which doesn't reflect the real world so much as a compromise between different factions of Wikipedia editors circa 2014? For what purpose? Archon 2488 (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Engineering-related articles are articles that primarily discuss engineering-related aspects of the article's topic. An article that focuses on destinations served, cost, political acceptability, and the like, is not an engineering-related article. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess that's easy enough to say, but then what does "primarily" mean? What does it mean to say that an article "focuses on" X at the expense of Y? What if that focus changes as the article evolves? These seem like weasel words to me. The problem with what you are suggesting is that, as a rule, it would imply that if an article started life as a few paragraphs on engineering-related topics, then was expanded to encompass broader information, it would pass some critical threshold and cease to be officially "engineering-related" as an article. This would then imply, by the utterly Byzantine rules of WP:METRIC, that editors would no longer be allowed to use consistently the units which are used in real life, but would need to follow the somewhat-arbitrary WP convention for generic British articles.

I think that this question of where that critical point lies is an unanswerable one, and the distinction is pedantic and unnecessary. Once again, what actual purpose does it serve? Why should Wikipedia have an "engineering hat" which it puts on to speak in metric, then in some cases takes off to speak in imperial? Archon 2488 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that we should use "the units which are used in real life" - but then rejecting the units used in real life when they happen to be imperial. Note that WP:UNITS deliberately prefers imperial units only in cases where they are overwhelmingly more common in real-life UK usage.

The engineering exception very clearly does not specify metric-first, it specifies the units of design first. In many cases this will actually be imperial.

The article High Speed 2 is not engineering-related, so far as I can see, so WP:UNITS would apply as normal - but the determination is ultimately left to local consensus on the article talk page. I don't see a compelling reason here to change that. Kahastok talk 22:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

> You seem to be arguing that we should use "the units which are used in real life" - but then rejecting the units used in real life when they happen to be imperial.

Nope. Please read what I said. Specifically, "I have not argued against the use of imperial where there is a genuine historical warrant for it" (of course I'd extend that to cases where nominal values are given in imperial, such as speed limits in mph). If you try to argue that a railway which measures speeds in km/h may not be described using that unit then you are guilty of exactly this offence. To carry this to its absurd conclusion, we'd be stuck with 3.1-mile or 6.2-mile races, because km are "disallowed" by WP:UNITS.

> The engineering exception very clearly does not specify metric-first, it specifies the units of design first.

Again, closer reading will pay dividends. I am quite aware of this, and I have repeatedly said that using imperial-first in the context of, say, Brunel is OK. Doing it for HS2 is anachronistic in the extreme, and would in effect mean that Wikipedia would be undeniably falling behind metrication in the UK. Your "many cases [where the original units] will be imperial" do of course exist, but they are almost entirely older infrastructure.

> WP:UNITS deliberately prefers imperial units only in cases where they are overwhelmingly more common in real-life UK usage

That's a bit simplistic. There are lots of cases where kilometres are the normal unit of distance, such as in many kinds of outdoor activities. My running club measures all jog lengths in km. Trail lengths for hiking or biking (or pistes in Scottish ski resorts) are commonly given in km. My orienteering compass doesn't even have imperial units on it, because OS maps haven't used inch-mile scales for decades. It's now policy that the old miles and chains will be phased out and replaced with kilometres on the mainline railways; newer infrastructure tends to use metric units throughout. This is undeniably objective NPOV information about the units that are used in Britain, but the existing rule is so broad-brushed that it just sweeps over it.

> the determination is ultimately left to local consensus on the article talk page. I don't see a compelling reason here to change that

Thank you. On one thing, at least, we agree. This entire discussion was started simply because, at the end of a discussion on the HS2 talk page, one particular editor didn't get his way. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that the HS2 article is clearly "engineering related." I cannot understand how anyone can seriously argue that it isn't. If a proposal to build a railway isn't related to engineering, what is? Therefore we need to find out what were the units of design for the HS2 proposal and run with that. Michael Glass (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Michael Glass, I moved your comment so it's in a more logical position — hope you don't mind.

I'd suggest looking at the categories in which the article is included, such as "High-speed railway lines in the United Kingdom" and "Proposed transport projects in London". It seems clear to me that inclusion in these categories suggests that the article relates to engineering and infrastructure. Merely discussing other topics doesn't change this fact. By the same token, an article on a proposed bridge, ocean liner or supertall building would clearly be engineering-related. Just think how Wikipedia typically classifies such articles — also in terms of WikiProjects. These are emergent, natural and intuitive classifications which people do not find controversial in practice. The article on the Titanic is engineering-related, so it can give dimensions in feet and inches per the original design, although obviously much of the article is about the sinking and the cultural impact rather than the engineering as such. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I cannot believe that another hang-up has resulted here. It is quite clear that the High Speed 2 article is an "engineering-related article". It is exactly the type of article the exception was designed to serve. There is no doubt that the railway has been designed in metric, therefore, measurements pertaining to the railway should be in metric. RGloucester — ☎ 00:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jc3 that this is not "Engineering" within the meaning of the wording. By merely asserting that HS2 is Engineering, like shouting loudly over the rooftops, doesn't make it so. The project is too macroscopic for it to be usurped as "Engineering" for MOSNUM purposes, to be used as part of of the Wikipedian "Metric vs Imperial" battleground. It's fundamentally an Economics article, based on the perceived need to build high speed links to the extreme parts of the UK. It's served by major investment in a transportation project; I'd argue that the primary drivers are geographical and political factors. Transport is a major component, of which Engineering is only the enabler in this. This is no synchronous motor or cellular network – I see no scientific equations, workings or hypotheses. There are only about 60 "measurements" in the entire article. So it's probably about as Geography-related as Engineering-related. I'm not saying who's right or wrong, but depending on how you look at it, the HS2 article is only the pawn or Trojan Horse in this game being played out. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

HS2 is a large-scale engineering project, as is any railway line. The economic angle would not exist if it were not for the engineering, that is the physical laying of the track. The exception was created so that engineering projects drawn up in metric would use metric units. This means that the length of the route should be written in metric, along with the gauge of the track and so on. It really isn't that hard to comprehend, and you are taking it much further than is necessary. I don't know if you remember from the previous discourse, but in my own head, I prefer imperial units. I am not a metricator, nor an imperialiser. I have no interest in a metric v. imperial skirmish. I compromise. To call the largest civil engineering project in Britain for a very long time "not engineering-related" is the queerest thing I've ever heard. Anyway, I have no interest in another endless discussion, I was merely here to provide my brief opinion, as I was the drafter of said exception. RGloucester — ☎ 03:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with RGloucester. To claim that one of the largest civil-engineering projects in Britain is not "UK engineering-related" beggars belief. This is exactly the sort of article that the provision was intended to address: civil-engineering projects such as bridges, railways, and motorways designed and implemented in metric units, long after the use of imperial measurements for such purposes was abandoned and de facto became illegal. --Boson (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The project is certainly engineering-related. But is the article? Look through the article: how much of it is actually discussing engineering? Most of it is actually discussing the politics, and those parts that aren't are mostly discussing the geography. As others have pointed out, there are actually very few measurements - and most of them are geographical-scale distances and speeds, precisely the sorts of units that would be frequently expressed into imperial in British usage.

But ultimately this is a matter for the article talk page. I do not see an improvement needed on the guideline. Kahastok talk 19:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"But is the article?"

In my opinion: yes; the article is about an engineering project, so it is engineering-related. This does not mean that other aspects may not be discussed at length. For this reason (non-engineeering topics in engineering-related articles and vice versa), I argued, in the protracted discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 142#Imperial measurements, that units should be dependent on the context rather than the topic of the article. It was you who rejected that and suggested

except in articles concerning civil engineering projects conceived in metric units.

--Boson (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kahastok that the HS2 project is certainly engineering related, but, so is the article that deals with the project. This can be seen from the article's headings: History, Route, Connection to other lines, Journey times, Planned stations, Development, Environmental impact and Alternative plans. The engineering connection is more than a tally of the number of times it refers to measurements. Nor does it cease being connected with engineering because it deals with the politics of this major project or deals with the geography through which the project is to pass.

I agree with Kahastok that this a matter for the article talk page.

I agree with Kahastok that the guideline in question does not need "improvement."

Michael Glass (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I came here hoping for clarification as to what "UK engineering-related articles" meant in the guideline, to help with a disagreement about whether the HS2 article qualifies, or not. Judging from the replies here, it isn't clear at all, with claims both ways in equal measure. So I would suggest that the guideline does need further clarification.

My view remains that, although the HS2 article is about an engineering related topic, it itself is not actually an "engineering-related" article, agreeing with the reasons given above highlighting its broader topic content. Articles specifically about the engineering of the trains or of the track or its many bridges and tunnels would almost certainly be engineering-related, but the current HS2 article itself is more about the economics and politics than specifically the engineering. Passy2 (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Problem is this: as construction proceeds, the content of the article will change, and might well become "more engineering-related". How exactly does one quantify just how much engineering content there needs to be in an article before it's officially engineering-related? This is the angels-on-pinheads question I've been talking about.

At any rate, trying to impose a solution from on high isn't going to work, because that would sacrifice nuance ("follow real-world usage — use those units in official use") for the sake of creating a false appearance of uniformity ("just put miles first because they're more common"). Ultimately the only solution that is workable is for the issue to be settled on the article talk page.

I'd suggest a commonsense criterion: If you can sensibly imagine the article being included in a category or project such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains, then you should consider it to be engineering-related (HS1 is already in this category, for example — or is the article on HS1 engineering-related, but not the article on HS2? How many hairs need be split for that distinction to make sense?). More common sense: discussing the politics etc. attending the beginning of a new engineering project does not make it less of an engineering project, nor does it make any difference to the units in use. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is a matter for article talk pages, and that the guideline needs no further modification. Archon 2488 has put forth some sensible comments forward. I would direct you, Passy2, to look at the present guideline for "science-related articles". This is what the engineering exception was modeled on, and has not created any controversy. Many of the "science-related articles" could be argued to pertain to things other than science, as it happens. Nevertheless, "science" is their base. As is engineering, for this article.

If we have an article on a plant, that is a botany, or science-related article, even if one could talk about it being sold by greengrocers, and having a large economic impact on world markets. That's because, fundamentally, the article is about the subject. The implications of the subject all stem from the subject. "Engineering-related articles" are those that are based in engineering. Everything that you've mentioned that is discussed in the article is a product of the very engineering itself. One cannot talk about the economic impact of a bridge without the bridge itself, and the bridge is a piece of engineering. I would advise that you to avoid splitting hairs, and reading too much into guidelines. It serves us well on Wikipedia to be pragmatic. RGloucester — ☎ 15:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, to my mind, if the question is, "[h]ow exactly does one quantify just how much engineering content there needs to be in an article before it's officially engineering-related", the answer is, so long as the spirit of MOSNUM is not clearly being broken, it is engineering-related when the talk page consensus says it is.

Of course, we have to be careful of those who abuse the rules. The global consensus expressed through the letter and spirit of MOSNUM still overrides local consensus if there is a clear conflict, and we have had editors in the past that would quite happily argue that black was white if it served their POV on units. But this is not at issue here: it's a judgement call with legitimate room for disagreement, and in that case talk page consensus is the way to go. Kahastok talk 20:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Should MOSNUM reflect this oddity of UK marketing?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This clearly has no chance of achieving consensus for the proposed change, I also sense a deep sense of irritation in a number of editors that the issue of metrication in the UK is once more gracing the pages here. It seems sensible to simply close it now and lance the boil. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

---

One of the oddities of British marketing is that milk is sold both by the pint and the litre. This can be seen for example in ASDA and Sainsburys. Indeed, of the major stores, only ALDI sells milk just by the pint.

In view of the fact that milk is sold both by the pint and the litre, should Mosnum read as follows?

• imperial pints for draught beer/cider and most bottled milk.

I suggest the word most because milk sold by the pint is available in a greater range of container sizes and usually at a better price than the milk in 1 and 2 litre bottles. Michael Glass (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"Most" creates ambiguity. Which ones? Not which others? And if everyone markets by pints (even if some also market by litres), then what's wrong with leaving it as pints? —sroc 💬 02:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It'll be a matter of time that supermarkets will shift to litres and half litres of milk, then all that's left is beer. We will be able to change the guideline accordingly when that happens, but not before. Give it another couple of years. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It makes sense but I agree that "most" is vague. Something like "imperial pints for draught beer/cider and milk if bottled according to imperial standards" would be better. Jimp 08:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the text of the guideline is confusing and needs clarification. It is supposed to describe usage in Wikipedia articles, not usage in British shops (they may, of course, sometimes be the same but Wikipedia does not prescribe adherence to any particular British usage, e.g. marketing usage). The sense in which "used" is employed seems to change in the middle of the sentence. It starts off describing usage on Wikipedia

• "In non-science and non-engineering UK-related articles: the main quantity is generally expressed in metric units . . . "

but continues

• ". . . but imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including: . . .imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk",

which appears to be describing usage in shops etc. and thus belongs in an article on metrication, not in the guideline.

That, at least, seems to be the general understanding here. I suppose it could be interpreted as a guideline for articles on draught beer and bottled milk, but it is formulated in a non-prescriptive way that is not helpful in the context of the Manual of Style.

So the question really is: does the guideline intend to prescribe imperial measures for draught beer and bottled milk in Wikipedia articles? Whatever the answer, the intended meaning should be expressed clearly. If the intention is to describe Wikipedia usage, "imperial pints for draught beer/cider and most bottled milk" does not really make sense, but the current text is also inadequate.

--Boson (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The guidelines for units in UK-related articles are a dog's breakfast and have caused frustration on several occasions. They're overly general and vaguely worded — someone had the idea of using a table to clarify things (e.g. rather than just saying "use miles" it would say "use miles for X"), but for some reason that was never implemented, and the last discussion produced a very unhelpful stall. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone really want to reopen this can of worms? It is best to leave it well alone. The current guideline, however imperfect, functions the great majority of the time. Furthermore, it is not as if articles are frequently describing bottled milk, whether in pints, quarts, drams or litres. It is merely hinting that common usage does use imperial in certain cases, which is true. There is no need for hairsplitting. RGloucester — ☎ 14:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the length of time between the end of the last discussion and this editor's decision to bring it up again is not particularly exceptional. 3-4 months is pretty close to the average. People wonder what the problem is, and at least a major part of it is that the same editors bring points such as this up so frequently.

The OP's premise is flawed. Most British householders do not buy their milk online. They go to the supermarket or have morning milk deliveries. We may find that supermarkets' own marketing is different than that of mysupermarket.co.uk - and not all British supermarkets have a major online presence (where's the Co-op?)

The number of instances of measures of bottled milk on Wikipedia is likely to be very small already, so splitting hairs further is unhelpful. Adding "most" is introducing the old "can is not must" argument, where every instance of measurement is construed to be an exception to the rule.

Kahastok talk 18:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Kahastok, as milk is sold both by the pint and the litre, this is a "can and not must" situation. Michael Glass (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Revised proposal

First of all, I'd like to thank editors for their comments. The website I have referred to shows that milk in the UK is sold in a variety of sizes, some metric and some Imperial. The old Times guide also mentioned this situation.

• Yes, Most is ambiguous. We can't be sure on the evidence from My Supermarket how much milk is sold by the pint and how much is sold by the litre or which brands might be sold in other stores. All we know for sure is that milk is packed and marketed in both ways.
• Yes, the situation might be clearer in a couple of years, but in the mean time, MOSNUM implies that all milk is sold by the pint. This is not accurate.
• No, "imperial pints for draught beer/cider and milk if bottled according to imperial standards" could imply that selling milk by the pint was the exception. I don't think this is so.
• Yes, there may be other problems with the wording, but let's just see if we can deal with this one.
• Yes, the occasions when articles might need to milk containers is infinitesimal so we may not even need to mention it in MOSNUM.

The present wording implies that there is a cut and dried rule about milk. This is not true. Either MOSNUM should say that most milk is sold by the pint or all reference to milk sizes should be removed. Which do other editors prefer? Michael Glass (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The present guideline does not state that all milk is sold by the pint. It says "imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts". This is correct. Pints are very frequently used as the main unit for the sale of milk. Nevertheless, this is not a dairy. We are not selling milk. Leave it as it is. RGloucester — ☎ 00:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If pints are very frequently used as the main unit for the sale of milk then most milk is sold by the pint. The present wording implies something more. Adding just one word would clarify this point without implying anything less. Michael Glass (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The real question is, dear fellow, why should we change it? Where has this provision ever caused a problem in the context of an article? Is someone writing an article on bottled milk? I suppose we could remove it, but I don't see why. It is one of the common exceptions to the rule, even if it is not used in articles, and it is worthwhile to note that for the reader of the guide. If you want to make it "most", that's fine with me, as it won't make a difference. We don't write about bottled milk anyway. Of course, others will disagree, because of the "can not must", nonsense, and because people here tend to like to interpret things in queer ways. RGloucester — ☎ 02:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Why change the wording? I believe that adding "most" makes the wording more accurate. For instance, on the My Supermarket web page for ASDA. 43 items were listed, but 4 of them were for litres of goat's milk and one was for 250g of buttermilk. Of the 38 remaining items, 17 were for cow's milk in litre or 2 litre containers. [2] Most milk is sold in pints, even though a substantial minority of items were in metric containers. It might be a small point, but I think it's better to be accurate. Michael Glass (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Leave well alone: While absolute anal accuracy may be desirable in a perfect world, it's not worth more than about 2 minutes' discussion because the number of problematic occasions likely to be encountered is so small. And I've spent my 2 minutes. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ohconfucius!, why have you made the status quo the enemy of the very slightly better? Confucius says, "To see what is right and not to do it is want of courage." What has made adding one word to the policy so frightening? Michael Glass (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

To be very honest, the topic of milk containers is utterly trivial, to the extent that I don't understand why it's even mentioned in MOSNUM. Is it important enough to merit its own mention as an exception to the rule that food is generally described in metric units? Is "can is not must" really such a problem in this case? If it really mattered you'd describe the container using the most appropriate units: 4 pints, not 2.272 litres, and 2 litres rather than 3.51951 pints. This is basically covered by the rule that nominal/defined quantities should be given in the original units first, which could sensibly be understood to include round metric or imperial fill amounts. Likewise with beer: nobody is going to argue that "a couple of pints" should be rendered as "1.13652 L" any more than "a couple of bottles of wine" should be replaced with "1.5 litres of wine". All that being said, Wikipedia isn't a dairy, a bar or a recipe book, so I can't imagine why this would ever be an issue. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is not worth opening up this can of worms at present. I suppose we need the wisdom to distinguish between that which cannot be changed and that which can be changed, regardless of what 'should' be changed. I can't see a sensible solution emerging without an inordinate amount of effort as long as greater tolerance of editorial disretion ("can not must") is rejected by at least one editor with strong views on the subject. However, I think it would be worth noting for future reference (when this section of the MoS is next reviewed) that the wording needs to be revised to clarify exactly what usage is prescribed (or otherwise) by the MoS and remove any (of necessity over-simplified) pronouncements about actual usage by the general public. Discussion of actual usage belongs on the talk page (or at most in footnotes). Greengrocers' and other shopkeepers' usage is largely irrelevant to Wikipedia style. Wikipedia usage should follow the usage of non-fiction prose, giving a little weight to journalistic usage and scholarly usage but most weight to usage demonstrated by texts aimed at an educated but non-expert readership. --Boson (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made it clear several times that my objection is not to "greater tolerance of editorial discretion" - though it is worth considering that the only editors who argue that there is no room for common sense interpretation of the current rules are you and the OP.

And the fact is that the OP has a long record of refusing to accept that there is any possibility of middle ground between a complete strait-jacket and a complete free-for-all. We know through over half a decade of experience that if we add any form of ambiguity to these rules, the OP will take it as license to mass-convert articles for no reason other than his personal POV. Hence: "can is not must": his argument is that the fact that MOSNUM prefers one unit becomes irrelevant if there is any potential get-out. We as editors would be exceedingly naïve to pander to such a POV push. Kahastok talk 19:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall arguing that there is "no room for common sense interpretation of the current rules".

I do recall arguing that WP:IAR is best reserved for unforeseen or exceptional circumstances, not as a general excuse for sloppy formulation of guidelines that can easily be improved. Perhaps that is what you were thinking of. I see no harm in stating where we wish to explicitly allow alternatives (as we do elsewhere). --Boson (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I do see harm in writing up the rules in a way that has been abused on an industrial scale in the past, by editors announcing that the wording gives them license to convert articles against the rules for no reason other than their own POV. Particularly when one of the main proponents of such a change (not you) has such a long history of such abuse.

I have just reviewed the text I previously suggested at User:Kahastok/Units2, and I invite you to look at it for an example of a way that we could explicitly allow editorial discretion without pandering to the "can is not must" argument - i.e. by explicitly requiring a good reason for deviating from the rule. Kahastok talk 15:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an improvement over the existing version (almost anything would be), and I am pleased that it allows for nuance. Specifically, we need to be aware that the units in official use for many things do vary: saying that most people prefer imperial for height/weight is well enough, but in a lot of sports it's measured in metric units, and that needs to be accommodated (this is almost the only use of height/weight units for people on Wikipedia). I seem to remember that a previous proposal to this effect was shouted down for no good reason: so long as accurate NPOV information can be found to justify preferring metric units, then there should be no accusations of editorial bias. Likewise with horses etc. — if the context is horse racing and the official measurements are in hands, then fair enough, but otherwise I'm dubious as to why they should be given primacy. Outside of the context of horse racing I don't think hands are more familiar to most people than metres. As a general rule, I think that "official use" as a criterion should be preferred to "common use", because the former is less ambiguous.

"Pints for bottled milk" — OK, but you'd typically give a container size in whatever units made most sense (as I see it, already covered by the rule that nominal and defined quantities are given in the original units first). In the UK, Blue Moon beer is typically sold in 12 US fl oz bottles — that's the way it is. Anyway, this will occur so rarely that it will be a bridge that can be crossed when we come to it.

"Miles for length" is a bit strange... length of what? Runway lengths would be given in feet in imperial units, but the only people who still do that are the Americans. Lengths of road are imperial: that seems to be settled on. Rail is imperial or metric according to which line it is (a poor compromise, but necessary as the British rail system is transitioning to the use of metric units). As far as distances go, it's a bit more complicated. Generic British articles might use imperial distances, but geography-oriented articles such as Windermere should probably prefer the metric units, because those are the units used on maps of the British Isles (and the standard international geographical units), as well as the units used in hiking and most outdoor activities in the UK (this, I think, is the demographic towards which such articles should really be targeted, if anything). In any case, I would want to be sure that these points would be accepted rather than dismissed as "excuses" for the mass-conversion of articles and the ever-dreaded "can is not must". Archon 2488 (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I must admit that I do not give much weight to the argument for formulating guidelines in a vain attempt to avoid the possibility of abuse. Rigorous enforcement of policy might have served us better. Do you have any examples of abusive mass changes of primary units for milk in returnable bottles?

I assume your reference is to the following part of your draft:

There have been many disputes on Wikipedia over unit use on UK articles and most have arisen between editors advocating the superiority of one system over another. Because the primary reason for Wikipedia's existence is to provide an online encyclopedia that is readily accessible, the following approximation to local usage (broadly based on the style guide of The Times) is applied.

The primary quantity is generally expressed in an SI unit or a non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI (44 kilograms (97 lb)). However, in some contexts, the primary quantity is expressed in imperial units. These include:

• miles for length and distance, miles per hour for speed, and miles per imperial gallon for fuel consumption;
  
• feet and inches for personal height and stones and pounds for personal weight;
  
• imperial pints for draught beer and cider, as well as for bottled milk;
  
• hands for the height of horses, and most other equines
  

In articles specifically related to UK engineering, including all UK bridges and tunnels, the primary quantity is generally expressed in the units that the project was designed in, whether metric or imperial. However, the primary quantity for road distances and speeds should still be expressed in miles and miles per hour as above.

Some editors hold strong views for or against metrication in the UK. If there is disagreement about the units used for main quantities in an article, discuss the matter on the article talk page, and consult relevant WikiProjects, and/or MOSNUM. Exceptions to the above – in either direction – may be appropriate if there is a good reason; however, personal preference or alignment with the specific source cited to justify the measure are not considered good reasons.

Of course, we would have to lose the bit about editors "advocating the superiority of one system over another" and other inappropriate discussion of editors' views, behaviour or motivation, but otherwise that looks like a good starting point. The mention of The Times also adds nothing, and some adjustments might be appropriate to bring the recommendations into line with legislation. For instance, "bottled milk" should possibly be replaced by "milk in returnable bottles". A similar small adjustment to reflect the relevant law would probably also be necessary for "miles for length and distance" but, since we can probably base the wording on actual legislation, that should not be a problem; the exception from metric units mainly applies to road distances, in particular road signs, and does not apply to maps etc. All that should make the text a bit shorter, too. --Boson (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No wholesale revision is needed. Leave the guidelines be. RGloucester — ☎ 04:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of usage - particularly on Wikipedia - is in areas not covered by legislation, so I would strongly oppose any attempt to bring the advice into line with legislation. Length is useful for e.g. rivers, and the difference between distance and length is sufficiently small that trying to say that the one should be in miles and the other in kilometres is likely to cause complete chaos.

The Times remains relevant: this discussion demonstrates its relevance because we have an editor here demanding changes based on his interpretation of British usage based on an internet shopping site's interpretation of shops' milk sales. What other interpretations of British usage can we come up with based on similarly specious evidence? Wikipedians like sources, and the Times is a useful and appropriate source to base this advice on (though not to follow religiously).

But the best option is probably to leave the thing alone as per RGloucester. Kahastok talk 09:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC

Two comments:

• I suggested two possible revisions of the present wording. Calling this a demand is a hostile misrepresentation.
• I stated that milk cartons are sold in pints and litres. This was based on clear evidence: here [3], here [4], here [5], and here [6]. Calling this evidence specious amounts to wilful blindness.

Either milk is sold by the litre as well as the pint, or it is not. I have stated that it is, and have backed it up with clear evidence. Kahastok has denied this. Either he is right or I am right. I invite other editors to click on the link and judge for themselves who is telling the truth. Michael Glass (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Thank you one and all. I have taken on board your advice that adding one word to the policy to bring it more in line with actual British practice is both utterly trivial and utterly subversive. However, I do challenge anyone to find one instance where clarifying the advice on milk containers could possibly lead to any mass conversion of articles. That is fanciful nonsense. Michael Glass (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree in principle that more accuracy is not a bad thing, but specifying the preferred units in such minute detail is not obviously beneficial. "Most milk" is a distinction without a difference. I fail to see how milk can be a POV push in any realistic way (I mean, really?!) How many articles involving British milk bottles are there to be mass-converted? Why is milk even in MOSNUM in the first place? Archon 2488 (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

In this instance? The proposal carries zero benefit, splitting hairs in a context not likely to be well-used on Wikipedia. But in the wider case, this sort of "can is not must" argument will be used by the OP to push a POV if we give it acceptance in our guidelines, as many years' experience demonstrates. Kahastok talk 15:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to say, the idea that milk is in any way a POV push strikes me as even more bizarre than the fact that MOSNUM bothers to mention it. It's not biased to say that "most" milk is sold in imperial containers, and I agree with it: it's a statement of fact, albeit a needlessly over-detailed and trivial one. If MOSNUM has to keep track of the minutiae of all the units in use in this country, which seems to be the road we're going down, then I guess "most milk" is more correct. Objecting to an argument just because of who happens to propose it is committing the genetic fallacy and is itself a biased argument. Switching the topic immediately to "what are X's motives" rather than "what are the units in use" is unhelpful and bound to start an unpleasant argument.

The bigger issue here is that the rules don't actually specify how to use the units, which invites misunderstandings and disagreements. And, yes, gaming. Archon 2488 (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made the point several times now that we are very unlikely to measure bottled milk on a regular basis, and that creating hair-splittingly small changes in it - particularly creating such vagueness - carries no benefit to the encyclopædia. This is why I introduced my comments with "in the wider case": exactly the same arguments have been made repeatedly by this editor in other cases. Where in the past they have managed to get such wordings into the rule, this editor has abused them on an industrial scale. Kahastok talk 18:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The above comment is ad hominem nonsense. A minor change in wording about milk could not possibly lead to the mass conversion of articles. It is clear that Kahastok's opposition to this proposal is based on personal animosity. Michael Glass (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If bottled milk rarely features on Wikipedia, why is it even mentioned? If "most" is accurate, then why is it "vague"? How open is milk to POV abuses? A sense of perspective is needed. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, howz about:

• "In Britain, milk is usually stated in pints, except when it's sold in litres" or
• "In Britain, milk in returnable 1-pint bottles is sold in pints, or it may be sold in litres"?

<just joking> ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Did anyone notice that the premise of the OP is flawed?

[7] Sainsbury's sells milk by the pint, one exception is a proprietary lactose free product from Arla.

[8] Asda sells milk by the pint, one exception is the same proprietary lactose free product from Arla.

The assertion that the major supermarkets have switched to litres is not true. Surprise, surprise the unit of choice of all major supermarkets is still PINTS.

No change is required to WP:MOSNUM and as noted by another poster:

• Constantly raising the issue of UK Metrication every 3-4 months is disruptive
• A word of advice, anal nit picking detail simply annoys and makes any consensus on anything proposed highly unlikely.
• We've already seen one editor indefinitely topic banned for constantly raising the issue of UK Metrication disruptively. I would suggest the patience of the community is being tested again and would strongly advise the OP to drop the stick and step away from the dustpile that was a dead horse about 5 years ago. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit of a misrepresentation of what he said: "most" of the items on sale on the Sainsbury's page are imperial, but several are metric (in addition to the Arla one, the Cravendale, Taste the Difference, Yeo Valley, Flora Pro-Activ and St Helen's Farm products come in metric containers). Individual product lines are not even consistent: Tesco Pure comes in 1 pint, 1 litre and 2 litre sizes. So it's not incorrect to say "most", and it does not imply that British supermarkets have converted en masse to litres, but it's just a bit unimportant. Like I said, it's not even obvious why bottled milk (!) belongs in MOSNUM. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The same misrepresentation is repeated in WCM's reference to ASDA. Once again, though the majority are in pints, several are metric. So we have seen that WCM's evidence is flawed on both counts. Here are some other failures on his part:

• He has failed to note that I have already stated the following: "Thank you one and all. I have taken on board your advice that adding one word to the policy to bring it more in line with actual British practice is both utterly trivial and utterly subversive. However, I do challenge anyone to find one instance where clarifying the advice on milk containers could possibly lead to any mass conversion of articles. That is fanciful nonsense." That means I have accepted that my proposal to add a word of clarification to the policy (or to delete a couple of words) has failed. End of that story. However, I reserve the right to answer his misrepresentations.
• My proposal was to say that most milk was sold by the pint: WCM has accused me of asserting that "that the major supermarkets have switched to litres" Once again he has got his facts wrong.

Enough said. Michael Glass (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I see the point about anal nit picking being annoying sailed right over your heads, no matter. For the record, I violently oppose any change in wording that introduces the slightest amount of ambiguity, since bitter experience over about 5 years leads me to conclude it would simply lead to the most absurd edit wars over unit order precadence on UK related articles. Please drop the WP:STICK. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly. We cannot go by simply counting SKUs, and there is no way we can ascertain the volume of milk that is sold in containers using metric or imperial units. All that can be said are the trends towards metrication. But as everyone but MG seems to agree, what is being argued for is so trivial and isn't worth the time of day. Can we close this now, please? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

> For the record, I violently oppose any change in wording that introduces the slightest amount of ambiguity

Beware of being too dogmatic and inflexible. If the real world isn't consistent, it's not generally reasonable to demand that Wikipedia should be. My main concern is that editors are forced into a straitjacket of using officially-deprecated units based on the spurious excuse that "they're more common". We also need to be aware that the units are changing, however slowly, and dismissing attempts to provide evidence of change as "anal nit picking" is unhelpful. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• AFAIK, our guideline remains correct. Whilst more and more milk seems to be coming to supermarkets in metric containers, bottled milk is still sold in pints. But because it's so utterly trivial, and does not affect many articles, it may be simplest to remove any mention of bottled milk from the guideline. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing in this discussion that would suggest that any change is needed. Suggest we close. Kahastok talk 18:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Right" date format in Wikipedia for YMD format countries (eg. Japan, China)

I refer to Date format by country for the right date format, but YMD is (usually) frowned upon in Wikipedia. Japan uses MD, but including year it's YMD and I've never seen explicitly if MDY should be used (for WP:STRONGNAT). Have seen MDY and DMY used in articles (and even both in same). Which is better (in case both are used, when trying to make consistent)? Can't strictly use either and claim WP:STRONGNAT? Should/do we recommend DMY, or MDY or allow both?

Not a problem when other format also allowed, but same problem when DMY and MDY both used (which more?). comp.arch (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

In English Wikipedia articles, we ought to use English formats, not formats that mirror those used in the countries that the articles relate to (unless those are English-speaking countries). W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see how an international standard can be said not to be English, but in any case it is explicitly recognised as a standard by many bodies in the Anglophone world [9]. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

YMD is not endorsed by Wikipedia for general use, and with good reason. YMD is all well and good as a standard, but it's not in common usage in the English-speaking world. MOS:DATEFORMAT reflects real-world use, not an idealised version. One day, the world may change—maybe Americans will even give up the un-endian MDY format—but as of now, we don't use YMD for general prose. —sroc 💬 13:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:STRONGNAT does not apply to non-English-speaking countries. YMD format is not merely "frowned upon"; it's not permitted in general prose, per MOS:DATEFORMAT. Use either DMY or MDY—both formats are equally acceptable, a consequence of having users on English-language Wikipedia from different parts of the world accustomed to different formats, rather than separate wikis for every varieties of English. Once either format is established in a given article, it should generally stick, per WP:DATERET. —sroc 💬 12:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a standard which is in real-world use for many things. Nonetheless, numeric dates should not be used in general prose at all, be they YMD or the illogical US format: the date should be written out in full per MOS:DATEFORMAT. If brevity is desirable then the YMD format may be used, which I agree with. To end up with a bizarre mixture of US and UK date formats because we don't like asking people to use sensible international standards (on an international project) is perverse and pointless. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The standard may be "in real-world use for many things", but is not widely used in prose as far as I am aware, so adding it to prose in Wikipedia articles would spook readers more than the familiar DMY and MDY formats. In an ideal world, we would choose either DMY or MDY for general prose, but we don't live in an ideal world. Most of the world prefers DMY, but a large part of Wikipedia's readership (and editorship) uses MDY, and we don't want to irritate supporters of either one, so both are supported. Whichever format the reader prefers, they would still readily understand the other. Unless we cleave the Wikipedia in twain for different audiences, this is the compromise, for better or worse. —sroc 💬 22:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:STRONGNAT and "right" date format (for non-English speaking countries)

When seeing MDY or any other than DMY in "Icelandic" (BLP) articles I've taken the liberty to change to DMY (Iceland's date format). Nobody has complained. From section above I'm told WP:STRONGNAT doesn't apply. It should, and I want to see that changed in the MOS.

Sorry for the confusion in the section above, I see now that there can be no right date format for eg. Japan related articles, both DMY and MDY could apply. When seeing a mixture of formats used, I would like to have the option of changing to DMY there also without having to search for whether MDY or DMY was first use.. (I've seen both on first use..).. comp.arch (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

My impression from MOS:DATEFORMAT was that MDY and DMY should not be used in general. The permissible numeric date format (YYYY-MM-DD only) should be restricted to references and tables, where it makes sense. In prose the date should always be written in full and will thus be unambiguous. Have I missed something? Archon 2488 (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I assume you meant "MDY or DMY should be used in general"? That is not the issue I had. It's which one. See below, and am I allowed to change eg. MDY to DMY, (possibly when both/either is used (on first use)). comp.arch (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that one comes upon an article with mixed date formats, it is a pain in the neck to try to figure out if it once had a consistent, established date format. But that is the rule and it would require a well-advertised RFC to change it. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I understood the previous poster to mean "MDY" and "DMY" to refer to dates being written in full. 25 Feburary 2014 is DMY, and February 25, 2014 is MDY. AFAIK Wikipedia accepts both of these formats, but doesn't encourage switching from one to the other without a reason. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I see. This makes more sense, but it strikes me that when it's written out in full it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. So long as there is only one numeric format allowed, and it's used only in a few special contexts (in particular, nonsense like 2/3/14 must be completely disallowed for obvious reasons) then there's no reason for disagreement. Just pick one of the two arbitrary long formats and stick with it, which is what WP:DATERET seems to imply. I'm not even consistent in my own life as to whether I use MDY or DMY for the written date. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We had this a while back and some editors maintained that if a nation wasn't English-speaking, there was no national variety of English and therefore whatever format the first editor used was the one the article should stick with. I think that's bizarre and that date format is like units of measurement and currency symbols - we should use whatever that nation uses. --Pete (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite sympathetic to this suggestion. My philosophy is that the English Wikipedia shouldn't just be for native English speakers (indeed, many of our contributors and readers are not native speakers) but it should be for everyone who can speak English. An odd peculiarity of defining "English-speaking countries" is that you can't necessarily go by a) official languages (then the USA wouldn't count since it doesn't have an official language) or b) majority use (since South Africa wouldn't count, because although English is an official language and is the de facto lingua franca, it's the native language of a fairly small minority of the population).

English is perhaps unique in that it's a language with significantly more second-language speakers than first-language speakers. In particular, there are countries like Sweden and Iceland in which nearly 100% of the adult population speak English to an advanced or near-native level. It seems a bit arbitrary to exclude these people from considerations of "strong national ties" as far as writing style is concerned. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point. —sroc 💬 22:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If we allow them, then we need to allow all, including China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hungary, Mongolia, and Lithuania. They're a third of the world's population, yet the MOS disallows their YMD format. I've we're not allowed to use Lithuanian-style dates for Lithuania, then there's no good argument for using Icelandic-style dates for Iceland. — kwami (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't use YMD in written English. This is the English Wikipedia. Therefore we don't use YMD in our text. Occasionally in tables, which is an acceptable usage, mainly because YMD is self-sorting. However, we use both DMY and MD,Y in written English, and I think it is just common sense and consistency to treat a nation's preferred choice of these two formats in the same way as we treat a nation's choice of units of measurement etc. --Pete (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If we were going to consider the date format preferences of countries like India and China because they have many people who write English as a second language, we would have to discover what their preferred date format is when they are writing English. That could be tricky to find out. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

In the case of India, not at all. --Pete (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and "screw China, they're too weird" is not a very encyclopedic approach. Either we follow countries' preferred date formats, or we don't. — kwami (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily - we might choose to follow countries' preferred formats if they correspond to one of the accepted English formats, but not otherwise. The Chinese use YMD, which is not an accepted English format (in ordinary prose), so we wouldn't follow it. I don't know (but someone might) what format Chinese people tend to use when writing English - if it turns out they have a clear preference for MD,Y, for example, then we could adopt that format for articles about China. Similarly, if it turns out they have a clear preference for American spellings over British ones, then we could aim to use such spellings in articles about China. Personally I don't think it really matters that much, but such criteria seem at least more logical than just randomly following the preferences of whoever started the article. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that allowing the question to be settled by whoever happened to submit the first version of the article isn't ideal — as a rule, it will invariably produce an inconsistent mishmash of different formats, even on different articles about the same topic, related to the same country. It's a pragmatic way to break a stalemate, but not a recipe for a consistent style.

It is desirable to follow local usage if possible: nobody could argue that it's acceptable for an article about France to give distances primarily in miles, for example, using the excuse that the article was originally submitted by an American. So if, as I suspect, there were a clear preference among people from Continental Europe to use DMY (French invariably uses this format, e.g. "le 1er mai 2011" so I assume that French-speakers would find it natural to use this format in English — also German, "am 1. Mai 2011") then I think that it should generally be used in articles about that country. To my knowledge, MDY isn't very common outside the USA, so it's not obvious why it belongs in non-USA-related articles (likewise, the imperial-first unit presentation style isn't generally used for non-USA-related articles). If a particular way of writing the prose date isn't used in any recognised variety of written English then it shouldn't be used ("on 2011 May 1"). Similarly, articles on China don't typically use Chinese customary units, because they're generally not used in an English-language context. India, on the other hand, should be an easy case, because English is an official language and is very widely used in the country as a lingua franca. Same applies to most Commonwealth countries, such as Nigeria, Kenya and Singapore: in all these countries, I think, there is a preference for DMY.

Summary: per W. P. Uzer, if there's a clear national preference for DMY or MYD date style in prose, that style should be used consistently in articles about that country. It's more useful as a criterion than WP:RETAIN. Archon 2488 (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Logical, and I'm not arguing that we shouldn't pursue this to create greater consistency among a series of articles (as well as within an article), but it's currently a free-for-all here at present. I agree also that most other countries and languages from Slavonic to Latin cultures are natively "one-endian". Asian cultures are the exception in that they are "the other-endian". It's a humongous mess because I often see translated texts where these native dmy, for example Cinco de Mayo, are rendered into mdy format. Just looks weird, and perhaps we ought to change it. Very big job, though. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

End of discussion (for me if WP:RETAIN (or similar rule) doesn't apply to dateformat, and WP:DATERETAIN is not in conflict). If RETAIN doesn't "forbid" changing dateformat, then my question is kind of moot and "unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties" in DATERETAIN means "strong natural ties" in the general sense, not the WP:STRONGNAT-"English" sense. I thought I would claim WP:STRONGNAT as it trumps RETAIN, but it only applies to "English-speaking country" articles. That doesn't mean it applies to Icelandic articles, but neither that it forbids changing with STRONGNAT-like argument. If there is any rule that I don't know about that prevents, or people want to make explicit I propose:

Concrete proposal: "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the United States, this is month before day; for most others, it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently."

be change to:

"Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular country should generally use the more common date format for that nation (of the allowed date formats). .." (meaning DMY (or MDY but not YMD).

or in case you do not want a "should" for non-English (having to look up date format):

"Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the United States, this is month before day; for most others, it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently. Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular non-English-speaking country may be changed to the more common date format for that nation (of the allowed date formats)."

Good suggestion. I favour the second - "may be changed" - wording. If an article is in the "wrong" format for a nation - Mozambique (say) - it is not a big deal which format is used. Either will be understood. Not all of us wince when we see the "wrong" format being used. But for the wincers, it would be nice to have the "may" option open, if they feel like it maybe, rather than opening things up for datenazis to use that "should" as a big stick. --Pete (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree - second version is good. But wording should be more precise than just "more common date format for that nation" - does it mean the more common date format used by people from that nation when writing English, or the format that more closely parallels the format used by people from that nation when writing in their language? (And in that case, which format more closely parallels the Chinese YMD: is it MDY because it puts month before day, or is it DMY because it puts M in the middle?) W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

My rule of thumb has always been to change the localisation on my computer to the nation in question and then see what date format is set as the default. Maybe that's putting too much faith in the guys from Apple or Microsoft or Linux or whatever, but they seem to be in agreement, and presumably they are aiming to make their customers in the target nation satisfied. Whatever, I see that as the right date format for that nation. For places, like China, that use a date format we can't use in written English, I think whatever the initial date format was should prevail, because if we allow open slather, style warriors are going to colonise that article and then defend their turf. --Pete (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Another suggestion "Articles on topics with strong ties to a country should generally use the date format that is more common there. In most countries it is day before month but in the United States, it is month before day. For articles on Canada, use either format but be consistent."

I think this covers all bases, with enough wiggle room in "should generally use" to keep the date Nazis at bay. Michael Glass (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

In my proposal I was trying to include Iceland (that uses DMY) and other non-YMD countries. Your proposal would allow eg. China/Japan that use YMD. English Wikipedia doesn't allow YMD (except for eg. references). comp.arch (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I had not considered countenancing YMD as this is not used in normal English prose. I saw it as a decision between MDY and MDY. Perhaps this would be clearer:

"Articles should generally use the day month year format for almost all countries and the month day year format for United States articles. For articles on Canada, use either format but be consistent."

That might be clearer. It has the advantage of being slightly shorter again and it presents the choice as being between DMY and MDY. Michael Glass (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

12-hour vs. 24-hour clock

It seems to me that MOS:TIME is unclear on when to use which format. What exactly is meant by "[c]ontext determines whether the 12- or 24-hour clock is used"? Archon 2488 (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(crickets)

It isn't abundantly clear, but I suspect this refers to which format is used relevant to a particular location. For example, the UK uses 24-hour time, so articles about the UK should probably use this format. I think the same guidance for DMY or MDY date formats could apply here: unless there is a reason attached to a particular country, follow whichever format is used by the first editor. —sroc 💬 22:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought. So I guess the rule should be the same as for dates: try to follow national usage where possible. I think a strong preference for the 12-hour clock is largely an American idiosyncracy, although it is still used to varying degrees in the rest of the English-speaking world, at least informally. More formal usage outside the USA tends to prefer 24-hour, and it's easier to parse and less ambiguous, so I'd say go with that. But in any case, "context determines" is uselessly vague as a guide to which format to use, and it should be improved. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether the 24-hour format is easier to parse or not depends on what you're used to. I'm more used to the 12-hour format and I'm not American. I'm not aware of any preference one way or other in terms of formality. As for ambiguity, neither is inherently ambiguous as long as you take care to avoid potential ambiguity, admittedly, though, more care is needed with the the 12-hour format. Jimp 09:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Comma delimiting for four-digit numbers

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Delimiting (grouping of digits) currently states:

• Numbers with five or more digits to the left of the decimal point (i.e. 10,000 or greater) should be delimited into groups so they can be easily parsed, such as by using a comma (,) every three digits (e.g. 12,200, 255,200, 8,274,527). A full stop (.) should not be used to separate thousands (e.g. 12.200, 255.200) to avoid confusion with the decimal point.
• Numbers with four digits to the left of the decimal point may or may not be delimited (e.g. 1250 or 1,250).

Apparently: "Most authorities, including The Associated Press Stylebook and The Chicago Manual of Style, recommend a comma after the first digit of a four-digit number." But that's not why I'm here.

I have previously read (in a printed style guide which I no longer have, possibly from Funk & Wagnalls) that the comma may be optional for four-digit numbers but should always be included when the number is in a list with other numbers that have the comma (e.g.., numbers with five or more digits). Thus:

• $100, $500, $1,000 or $100, $500, $1000
• $100, $500, $1,000, $25,000 but not $100, $500, $1000, $25,000

This seems right to me, and need not be applied only to lists, hence this edit where I added commas to "$1,000" and "$5,000" throughout the tables for consistency with "$10,000" which was used in the same tables.

I propose to add this to the second bullet point:

• Numbers with four digits to the left of the decimal point may or may not be delimited (e.g. 1,250 or 1250). They should be delimited when used alongside other numbers that are delimited, such as in lists or tables (e.g., $500, $1,000, $5,000, $10,000 instead of $500, $1000, $5000, $10,000).

Thoughts? —sroc 💬 14:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Another interesting case: if there is a list of distances, for instance in running or speed skating, and the longest distance is the only one that has five digits, namely ten-thousand metres, then, with the current rules, there would be inconsistency in the use of the comma between the distances in the list, for just one distance. See for instance Category:Speed skating record progressions and Category:2013–14 ISU Speed Skating World Cup – World Cup 1.

Had the also been competitions in the 12km and 15km distances, then it probably would have been a clear-cut case, but when there is a single occurrence at the end of the range, should that occurrence have a comma, and should that then affect all four-digit occurrences?

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you raise categories is interesting, because each title is usually shown in isolation, but they are shown together in the category. The first one (Category:Speed skating record progressions) only has one title that should have a comma but doesn't (World record progression 10000 m speed skating men). The second one (Category:2013–14 ISU Speed Skating World Cup – World Cup 1) doesn't have any distances over four digits, so it's irrelevant. I wouldn't be particularly concerned about these cases though (i.e., insisting that every "X000 m" article be renamed "X,000 m" if it is tagged in the same category as a "XX,000 m" article. I'm really only concerned with uses within a given article, so if these events were listed in an article, they should consistently have a comma if any of them have one. —sroc 💬 14:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

For example, in an article in speed skating, I might include this list:

• 500 m speed skating
• 1,000 m speed skating
• 1,500 m speed skating
• 3,000 m speed skating
• 5,000 m speed skating
• 10,000 m speed skating

Note that I would include the commas in the list even though they do not appear in the article titles. —sroc 💬 14:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, I should have used World Cup 3 instead. See Category:2013–14 ISU Speed Skating World Cup – World Cup 3. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Same goes. 2013–14 ISU Speed Skating World Cup – World Cup 3 – Men's 10000 metres should be 2013–14 ISU Speed Skating World Cup – World Cup 3 – Men's 10,000 metres in order to comply with the guideline. Meanwhile, since World record progression 10,000 m speed skating men was erroneously moved, I've re-opened the discussion at Talk:World record progression 10000 m speed skating men#Revert move to have it put back. —sroc 💬 15:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, this wouldn't be an issue if the longer events used kilometres instead, i.e.:

• 500 m speed skating
• 1000 m speed skating
• 1500 m speed skating
• 3000 m speed skating
• 5000 m speed skating
• 10 km speed skating

—sroc 💬 15:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with 10 km is, that people generally don't say "ten-kay", they say "ten-thousand", (cf. "five-thousand") in this context. That's my experience/impression at least. Btw, I have opposed your RMs. Don't take it personally. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't take it personally, I just don't understand your reasoning. MOS:NUMERAL says one thing, the article does the opposite. In fact, you previously cited MOS:NUMERAL to do the opposite of what MOS:NUMERAL says to do, and the only other editor to comment blindly said the same thing following another editor's proposal. What is your reasoning here? —sroc 💬 15:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I recognise the distinction between following MOS:NUMERAL in isolated cases with five digits (i.e., 10,000 over 10000 as in the proposed moves) and amending MOS:NUMERAL to clarify whether to delimit four-digit numbers in lists (as discussed above). These issues are not synonymous. —sroc 💬 16:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I would add that, as it seems most style guides favour a comma for four-digit numbers while some sources leave this as optional, if you want to avoid inconsistency in a series of numbers which include five-digits numbers (which style guides universally call for delimitation), then it only makes sense that the inconsistency be resolved by including the comma in the four-digit numbers (where some see it as optional) and not by omitting it from the five-digit numbers (where it is widely agreed to be required). —sroc 💬 16:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure what article – that does "the opposite" – you are referring to. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The simple solution to this (non?) problem is to always omit the comma where used as a decimal separator, reserving that (very useful) little character for where it is really needed, in the grammar or as a list separator. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dondervogel 2: We are not dealing with decimal separators (and MOS:DECIMAL does not allow the comma to be used as such anyway). This concerns delimiters (grouping of every three digits). —sroc 💬 00:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, so I used the wrong term. Where I wrote "decimal separator", please read "delimiter". My point is that the comma does not add any new information. It just adds ambiguity because "1,234" can be read either as a single number "1234" or as two numbers "1" and "234", separated by a comma. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't ambiguous. We put spaces between numbers, too (They were aged aged 3, 15, 44, 100 and 103; not They were aged aged 3,15,44,100 and 103). All style guides endorse delimiting, a convention that is widely followed in the real world. Otherwise, it becomes very hard to read large numbers (5,000,000,000 vs 5000000000). You may prefer delimiting with non-breaking spaces over commas, but that's not the issue here. —sroc 💬 08:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: This is really getting off-topic, but I'm referring to this:

Remove delimiting comma per WP:NUMERAL. I have included the men's 10,000 – or 10000 – in the RM for consistency, although the guidelines say that five digits or more should include the comma, because I think it looks a little awkward in the context.
— User:HandsomeFella 17:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The wording of the quoted section from WP:NUMERAL is the same as it was then, namely, that:

• The comma is required for five-digit numbers—despite this, you lobbied to have the comma removed (10,000 → 10000);
• The comma "may or may not be" used for four-digit numbers—not supporting change (1,000 → 1000) but remaining neutral, so it didn't really support a change in the status quo.

The change has ultimately gone from a case that did comply with WP:NUMERAL (10,000, 1,000) to a case that does not (10000, 1000). So you couldn't really say "per WP:NUMERAL" to justify the change. —sroc 💬 00:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on the use of commas in 4-digit numerals (other than always using them myself); but with regard to the OP's remembrance of a style guide's statement that they "should always be included when the number is in a list with other numbers that have the comma", I think I can offer some clarification. The style guides I'm familiar with that make such a statement are referring specifically to vertical arrangements of numerals, and the rule is to ensure that the thousands digits of 4-digit numerals align with the thousands digits of the larger numerals. Situations like

1,250,500

1500

36,400

are what they're trying to avoid, since such presentations make the interpretation (and addition) of columns of figures difficult. Deor (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've seen guides advising using commas w 4 digits to visually distinguish them from year dates.

Deor, that's a good argument, but the same would apply to spacing delimiters, and currently our templates group 4 digits together. It would be nice to be able to override that. I'm not sure it's what ISO intended either, but they're rather vague. — kwami (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Binary prefixes February 2014

About 10 days ago, Dondervogel 2 changed, without discussion,

... currently favours the retention of the more familiar but ambiguous units "KB", "MB", "GB", "TB", "PB", "EB", etc. over use of IEC binary prefixes. Use 256 MB of RAM, not 256 MiB of RAM.

to

... consensus on Wikipedia in computing-related contexts currently favours the retention of the more familiar but ambiguous units "KB", "MB", "GB", "TB", "PB", "EB", etc. over use of unambiguous (but less familiar) IEC binary prefixes. Use 256 MB of RAM, not 256 MiB of RAM.

I corrected it to

... consensus on Wikipedia in computing-related contexts currently favours the retention of the more familiar but ambiguous units "KB", "MB", "GB", "TB", "PB", "EB", etc. over use of unambiguous (but less familiar and virtually unused in reliable sources) IEC binary prefixes. Use 256 MB of RAM, not 256 MiB of RAM.

After being reverted, I restored the first version, per WP:BRD. Some might think the change is required by grammar, but I feel the second version implies that the consensus is because it is less familiar, rather than because it is rarely used in the real world, which was the real version of the consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

After a little thought, just leaving the word "unambiguous" in place, with no further commentary, might be better. However, that may also change the meaning, so I don't want to do it without consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If the change I made then (which followed a discussion on the talk page about how to clarify the text, but this is incidental to my point) was considered controversial, I find it very strange that no one challenged it at the time, or even mentioned it on the talk page. By contrast, Arthur Rubin's assertion that IEC prefixes are "virtually unused in reliable sources" is highly controversial, which is why I reverted it, and presumably why he tones down the claim now to "rarely used in the real world". No one disputes that use of these prefixes is rare. I strongly dispute the notion that reliable sources do not use them. On the contrary, IEC prefixes are increasingly used in scientific publications, and are the nearly universal choice of disambiguation for those who choose to disambiguate. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find a discussion, going back two archives. Still, the clarification with just "unambiguous", rather than any parenthetical remarks, seems to cover the issue better. I disagree with your assertions later in the above paragraph; I have never seen the "binary" prefixes in a scientific publication. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree the text "but less familiar" in brackets adds little and could be removed without changing the meaning. You can find hundreds of scientific publications that use IEC prefixes here of you are interested. The strange filter is to remove lots of spurious hits you would otherwise get that happen to use the abbreviations mib (e.g., men in black) or gib (Gibraltar). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that, in December 2010, it was determined by consensus that you were, and had said, you would stop at nothing to get the IEC prefixes into Wikipedia. Your recent actions show no change in policy, except that you are toning down your actions to avoid immediate reverts and possible topic bans. Perhaps it is time to revive the topic ban proposal from 2010. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The IEC binary prefixes were proposed almost 20 years ago and have failed to be adopted by the computer industry. Dondervogel 2 has been pushing for Wikipedia to adopt these "new and improved" IEC binary prefixes since 2008. Wikipedia uses the terminology that is commonly used in the real world. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Do either of you have any interest in the substance of the discussion? This is what happened: Arthur Rubin introduced a statement that Dondervogel 2 disagreed with and reverted; Arthur Rubin then proposed a change that Dondervogel 2 agreed to and Arthur Rubin implemented. Those are the facts, and that is how things are supposed to work. Wikipedia can manage quite well without the hot air. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This strikes me as rather unfair. The IEC prefixes are certainly used in the real world (for example, my Linux desktop gives information in IEC units only). Their unambiguity is a strong argument in their favour: it's not unreasonable for Wikipedia to prefer rational formats, whether "reliable sources" use them or not (bear in mind that Wikipedia does not defer to sources for unit choice). Certainly, computer-literate people (the demographic to which computer-related articles are most relevant) should be familiar with the IEC prefixes. Archon 2488 (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly seems that in situations where the precise quantity of data is considered to be significant, it would be better to use unambiguous units. If it's just a ballpark figure, then the more familiar units will do. W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The computer industry has not adopted the IEC prefixes. I just looked at Mainframes on the IBM site. This is from the zEnterprise EC12 (zEC12) Data sheet.

"All five models of the zEC12 are machine type 2827. The server supports up to a total of 3 terabytes (TB) of real memory. Beyond the customer-purchased memory, the zEC12 has doubled the amount of memory—32 gigabytes (GB) for the Hardware System Area (HSA) which holds the I/O configuration data for the server."

It doesn't matter if some professor from Sweden uses gibibyte, the computer industry doesn't. The vast majority of readers have never seen this notation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; it used the terminology found in the real world today. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not universally adopted, perhaps, but nonetheless it is used — perhaps more by software engineers than by the electrical engineers who design the hardware. Marketing would generally prefer the decimal prefixes because they make storage devices sound bigger. My operating system tells me that my 4 TB external HDD has a capacity of "3.6 TiB", for example.

Suggested compromise: use the decimal notation in contexts where precision is not so important, but allow the binary prefixes in more technical computing-related articles where they might be useful for disambiguation. It might be useful to recommend linking to the article on IEC prefixes with the first use of a binary unit (this is general practice for generally-unfamiliar units used in certain specialist contexts such as megaparsecs, femtobarns, GeV or AU). Another option is to expand the convert template to allow conversion between decimal and binary notation, and simply show both. Perhaps this would ultimately be most useful. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And my OS tells me my capacity in GB which shows that some OS versions use what we tend to use. So, in the end, which if any can be said to be right? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The Software industry doesn't use the IEC binary prefixes either. The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Tech Spec for Mac and PC states:

2GB of RAM (4GB recommended)

2GB of available hard-disk space

The IEC binary prefixes were proposed before Windows 95 was released; it is a dead letter technical specification. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Evidence cited above seems to contradict you - exhibiting one case in which something is not used does not constitute an argument that it is not used at all. W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not being universally used isn't equivalent to not being used. In this case (with RAM) I think what's happening is that the binary units are being used, but with decimal prefixes (this is exactly the kind of ambiguity we are talking about). So 2 GB of RAM means 2*(1024^3) B of RAM, not 2*(10^9) B. All we are suggesting is that it is generally helpful to show the binary and decimal quantities as different things, because they are. Like I say, the convert template already exists, and could be adapted to this purpose (bearing in mind that the conversion is somewhat non-trivial). Archon 2488 (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Differences in the bytes can be can be shown without using IEC prefixes. Use the number written out long-hand or use power notation for example and are perfectly acceptable. Using IEC prefixes pushes a point of view that is contrary to commonly accepted and used terminology in the field. Fnagaton 13:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit excessive to call IEC prefixes a POV push; they are just a different form of mathematical notation, which can be useful for disambiguation. But I agree that there are alternative ways of disambiguating. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that anybody who says "Wikipedia should use IEC prefixes for disambiguation" is pushing a non-neutral POV. This is because Wikipedia reflects the real world how it really is. In the real world IEC prefixes are not commonly used. What is commonly used are prefixes like KB used in the multiple of 1024 binary sense for RAM and multiple of 1000 sense for disk space. Since other real world use prevails then IEC prefixes shouldn't be used in Wikipedia articles. Prevailing real world use in this case being articles that use the number of bytes or power notation to clarify the precise number of bytes.Fnagaton 13:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of wording in the first paragraph.

At the moment, part of the introductory paragraph reads as follows:

Try to write so the text cannot be misunderstood, and take account of what is likely to be familiar to readers—the less they have to look up definitions, the easier it is to be understood.

The last clause appears to have it the wrong way around. The text needs to be clear so that the reader can understand it. The reader does not have to be understood. I also suggest a few other changes so that the text cannot be misunderstood.

Try to write so the text cannot be misunderstood, and take account of what is likely to be familiar to readers. The less that readers have to look up definitions, the easier the text will be to understand.

I believe that this is easier to understand and less likely to be misunderstood. Any comments, suggestions or improvements? Michael Glass (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is less ambiguous and grammatically better. No change in substance so it should be uncontroversial. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it's fine. Both versions are grammatically correct ("the easier it is to be understood" clearly implies "the easier it is for you to be understood by them" and there's no implication of the reverse). But it's no worse and maybe a bit better so go for it, and thanks for asking first. Herostratus (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've made the change as proposed.Michael Glass (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

UT vs GMT for pre-1961 occurences

An editor changed this:

the term "UTC" is not appropriate for dates before this system was adopted in 1961; Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) was used before this since the 1800s

to

the term "UTC" is not appropriate for dates before this system was adopted in 1961; Universal Time (UT) is the appropriate term for the mean time at the prime meridian (Greenwich) when it is unnecessary to specify the precise definition of the time scale

which I gather means we would formerly have said "He died at precisely 2:23 GMT on January 17 1910" and now we would say "He died at precisely 2:23 UT on January 17 1910". The reason for the change given was "Avoid the highly ambiguous term Greenwich Mean Time." I'm not sure it's that simple but maybe it is, but rather than just letting it pass unremarked I thought I'd just highlight the change. Herostratus (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that the previous stable version stated:

If [sic] some cases the best solution may be to give the date and time in UTC (before approximately 1962 give UT).

No link or explanation of "UT" was given. A series of edits by Fnlayson (removing reference to "UT"), Jc3s5h (replacing "UTC" with "UT" but leaving orphaned references to "UTC"), myself (restoring "UTC" and including separate note to "GMT") and a partial reversion by Jc3s5h (here) led to the current version. This has also been the subject of discussion on my talk page (User talk:sroc#Your edit to "Manual of Style/Dates and Numbers"). —sroc 💬 09:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Timekeeping terminology has been a problem since the invention of clocks. Since around 1675 when the Royal Observatory, Greenwich was founded, the observers there kept time with days starting at noon, so Greenwich Mean Time would change from March 1 to March 2 at noon. This way the observers didn't have to change the date in the middle of their observations. Beginning in the late 1800s when the world agreed that 0° longitude would pass through the Royal Observatory, non-astronomers began to combine the term Greenwich Mean Time with a day that started at midnight. It wasn't until 1925 that the astronomers finally acquiesced to this usage. In the early 1900s the term "Universal Time" was suggested as a natural extension of the "universal day" defined at the International Meridian Conference in 1884, to replace the term Greenwich Mean Time, because some considered the noon vs. midnight issue to have made GMT hopelessly ambiguous (and it still is, for events before 1925). Universal Time is the time used by the scientific and technical community for the mean time at Greenwich, when subtle differences in definition are not important, or where the document being considered does not state the precise definition of the time scale used in the document.

UTC wasn't defined until about 1962. That was the point at which the US and UK synchronized their radio time broadcasts as closely as the technology allowed. Gradually all the major national time services in the world joined in. So the term is undefined before then. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, it looks like this edit on 28 July 2012 by Jc3s5h introduced the text: "before approximately 1962 indicate UT." Unhelpfully, no explanation for "UT" was given, nor were any pertinent examples given or links for further information. It does not appear that this edit was challenged, nor can I find any discussion on it on the talk archives. Aside from the fact that this addition has gone unquestioned, is there anything to indicate that the use of UT (rather than GMT or any other alternatives) has gained consensus?

In any case, if there is potential ambiguity with both GMT (which originally reckoned the beginning of the day at noon) and UT (which has several iterations), and if GMT was initially adopted in 1847 whereas the term Universal Time was only recommended in 1935, which is preferable for use on Wikipedia for events prior to the introduction of UTC? For that matter, what of events before either GMT or UT were adopted? Would it be better simply to use the terminology that would have been used at the time (e.g., The Supply anchored in Sydney Cove at 11:30 a.m. Sydney time on 26 January 1788 or The Armistice at Compiègne went into effect at 11 a.m. Paris time (GMT +1) on 11 November 1918)? —sroc 💬 13:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I certainly think the contemporary time used at the place discussed by the article should be the first choice. For events before the early 1800s this is likely to be apparent solar time, as would be kept by a sundial. If there are only two places discussed in an article, then the time in both places could be given when necessary. But if the article does not relate to any particular place, or if there are a multitude of places, UT could be the best choice.

I have found instances of UT (and UT1, a particular way to measure UT) being used for times before it was first recommended. For example, McCarthy and Seidelmann, TIME – From Earth Rotation to Atomic Physics (2009) on pages 54 and 55 give graphs involving UT1 beginning in 1650, and state on page 17 "the use of the term 'Greenwich Mean Time' or its abbreviation 'GMT' remains a source of confusion today..." and go on to summarize recommendations against the term "Greenwich Mean Time" and in favor of "Universal Time" since 1928.

In The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2011 pages K8-9, on reduction of time scales, the term "UT" is applied to years beginning 1620 to and including 2014.

In summary, "Universal Time" is preferable to "Greenwich Mean Time" because there have never been contradictory definitions of "Universal Time". Yes, there are different versions of UT that may differ by a few seconds, but because the term is a member of a family of terms (UT0, UT1, UT2, UTC, and a few others) using UT is a statement by the author that the distinction between the different family members does not matter for the purpose at hand. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A better link (UK units)

A footnote in the policy refers to the Times Style Guide, but the link only goes to the general page. This is a more specific link (which can only be accessed by subscription): [10] The part that is accessible to non subscribers reads in part:

One of the longest entries in the Times Style Guide is headed, simply, “metric”. The heading is more or less the only simple thing in the entry, as is hinted at in the opening advice: “The Times should keep abreast of the trend in the UK to move gradually towards all-metric use, but given the wide age range and geographical distribution of our readers, some continuing use of imperial measurements is necessary.”

I propose replacing the general link with this more specific link. Any comments, criticisms or concerns? Michael Glass (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

UK Metrication again? Does anyone have the appetite to discuss this again? Drop the WP:STICK please. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A word of advice after McCartney: Listen to What the Monster Said. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Steady on guys, he only asked a reasonable question. For me, the present link just leads to the Times Online main page, which is of no relevance whatever, so certainly the other proposed link would be an improvement (though I would question whether we need such a link at all - isn't this page supposed to be Wikipedia's own style guide?) W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this has become somewhat of a toxic issue. Best not to discuss again until we have something of substance to discuss. I don't think the Times reference is massively relevant, but it makes little difference either way. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the others. I think W. P. Uzer would see why we say this if s/he had seen as much of this as the rest of us had.

I have changed the section heading to make it more descriptive. Kahastok talk 18:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As much of what? Editors pointing out deficiencies in the guideline and ways they might be improved? Sounds to be something we ought to encourage rather. What I have seen far too much of on Wikipedia is people bullying to preserve a particular version of a page or section, and using irrelevant arguments or personal insults (coupled with reverts, if necessary) to suppress any criticism of that version, even when entirely well-founded. Seems, unfortunately, that the same thing is happening here. If you're tired of discussing a particular issue (though I can't believe this link has really been the subject of a great deal of discussion before this), then you have a simple solution - let others discuss it while you go and do something else that interests you. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe the last main discussion on the link to The Times Style Guide was at

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 142#The Times style guide link

To bring you up to speed, the issues I remember discussing (there or, possibly, elsewhere) were:

1. whether we should refer editors to somebody else's style guide at all (as opposed to referencing article sources for verification of statements)
2. whether we should retain a dead link that was automatically redirected to today's news at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/ (which currently features the situation in Ukraine)
3. whether we should refer editors to an online style guide that is no longer made freely available online, having been first placed behind a paywall and then, apparently removed (I do not know the current status of the online version of the style guide.)
4. whether it would be appropriate to point readers to an unauthorized archived version of copyright material since placed behind a paywall
5. whether the text of this section of the archived page was the same as the printed version (ISBN: 0007145055; it is).
6. whether the text of the style guide was actually available behind the paywall at the address given (apparently, it wasn't).

If anyone has more up-to-date information, please provide it. The current discussion, as I understand it, seems to be about whether to replace the deadlink with a link not to any version of the style guide but to Rose Wild's comment on the style guide – most of that comment being behind a paywall – in the Feedback section. It doesn't look particularly useful to me, though it is, of course, much better than a link to the front page, which currently has absolutely nothing about imperial units (unless you are thinking of Russian military units in Ukraine!). --Boson (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The proposal was to replace a poor link with a better link. The offensive comments above reflect badly on those who made them. At least W. P. Uzer actually read and understood what I proposed. However, as he questioned the relevance of having the link at all there is no point in pursuing the matter any further. Michael Glass (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• There's no practical difference between "useless" and "next to useless". ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone oppose removing the link? --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a style guide to follow is necessary to stop the continuous gaming of the system by those whose editing follows an agenda to promote one system of units over another. I would strongly oppose removal of a guideline as it will promote edit warring among the idiots arguing the superiority of one systen over another, while the rest of us would just like to edit in peace. If you had seen the sheer stupidity of the arguments between the different camps you wouldn't even think of suggesting it. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see how that link to the Times solves the problem you evoked. The links (old and new) are pretty pointless and should be removed. Everything of use is behind a paywall, so it can still be gamed unless you want us all to subscribe to a copy to be able to say for sure something is definitive per the guide. The alternative is to read The Times online or keep a recent paper version handy to reverse engineer their usage of their different measures. The only ironclad way is to stipulate either Imperial only or metric only, but not many will agree to that. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Still available via the wayback macine. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• But that's a bit sad, like refusing to let go a dearly departed loved one... It will have undoubtedly changed since that version of the style guide was published, and it will change again for sure three years from now. And as we're not slaves to external style guides, let's take it off the pedestal. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I would strongly support removing the link completely. For one thing, The Times Style Guide, contradicts our own recommendations and thus contributes to the confusion and ill-feeling. The reference does nothing to stop any alleged "continuous gaming of the system". Can someone actually please confirm whether there any style guidelines somewhere behind that paywall? They were put behind a paywall, but my understanding was that they had since been removed altogether. Even if they have been put back again, it would be pretty pointless pointing editors to an address and telling them to follow the advice given there when most people do not have access – even if it did not contradict our own guidelines. --Boson (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedians like sources. Making note of the fact that we are basing our guidance on the style guide of the Times (loosely - with common sense and Wikipedia norms applied), a source that is trying to do pretty much exactly the same thing as we are doing, is fundamentally useful both to the user of the guide and to us as editors. In both cases it demonstrates that the compromise that we have is not some made-up nonsense but an accurate reflection of usage as it stands, based on an existing source that does the same thing.

The last time we did the whole UK units thing wasn't Boson's link. It was this, two weeks ago. With the same OP. Do we really have to do it over and over at this frequency? I don't see we should. But it is fact that we have people continually bringing this up to push a POV on this point, and when they do it is very useful to have an outside point of reference that we can point at and say, this is what someone else has done when doing exactly what we're trying to do, this is what we've agreed to base this advice on, this is an accurate approximation of British usage. I would strongly oppose removing it on that basis. Kahastok talk 19:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you are lumping too many things together, which is a familiar problem with previous discussions on the subject of imperial units.

We need to stick to one thing at a time, and this issue (removal of the Times link, in case anyone's forgotten) is very simple. As I noted, I was replying to "I can't believe this link has really been the subject of a great deal of discussion before this", and I believe my link does refer to the last "great deal of discussion" on the (dead) link to the Times style guide.

I do not agree that The Times is " doing exactly what we're trying to do", unless you define that in such broad terms as to be practically useless. The Times is a quintessentially British newspaper writing for a largely British readership. It is therefore quite appropriate for them to recommend using miles for all distances globally. We do not do this, so recommending following the Times style merely adds to the confusion. You write "loosely - with common sense and Wikipedia norms applied" but, to make any sense, that must actually be taken to mean "so loosely as to interpret it as stating something completely different".

We do - as you say – like sources, but I think you may be conflating citations (which are used merely to verify statements or quotations) and links to rules that editors need to read and observe (or, in this case: read and observe/ignore unspecified parts of). --Boson (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The Times also uses mdy dates. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The Times certainly trying to approximate modern British usage. And I think it is pretty obvious how the MOS reflects it. You point out that it recommends miles for distances globally. Do you really think that people are going to say, ah, the guide suggests we refer to the Times for UK-related articles, and the Times says use miles globally, so we'll go away and convert random non-UK-related articles.

We all know that within weeks of any removal of the Times, the usual suspects are going to show up and announce that we made the whole thing up and we should adopt source-based units or "can is not must" or some other proxy for the usual POV rubbish. Yes, there's a difference between an article and an MOS, but the reasons why we have sourcing in articles apply here.

There seems to be a bizarre assumption here that the Times must either be followed religiously or ignored entirely. The notion that the advice may be based on it, but with acceptance for the differences between the Times and Wikipedia, seems not to have been understood. That is what happened. We looked at it, adapted it to our needs, and adopted the adaptation. It's useful to have the source from which it was based in order to show where it came from. Kahastok talk 18:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What does The Times recommend?

I think the above discussion may suffer from people not being aware of what The Times Style and Usage Guide (or the online copy) actually says. I think fair use would permit large chunks of the content concerning metric/imperial measurements to be quoted verbatim on the talk page for the purpose of critical analysis, but we are not permitted to lift large amounts for our own manual of style, which provides advice rather than critical analysis. So perhaps we can first state what the style guide says in our own words. It might make sense to actually include some of the result in the MoS – after amending the parts that contradict what we currently recommend.

As I understand it The Times Style and Usage Guide contains the recommendations or prescriptions presented below (in the section " Contents of The Times Style and Usage Guide). Please comment here, if you think I have got it wrong. --Boson (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Contents of The Times Style and Usage Guide

General use of metric measurements

1. Where possible, avoid mixing metric and imperial in the same article. This is a goal, not a total prohibition.
2. Generally use metric measurements and give imperial measurements in parentheses.
3. Use of metric measures applies explicitly to temperatures.
4. Use of metric measures applies explicitly to areas, including hectares and square metres. However square kilometres should be avoided.

Exceptions to the general use of metric measurements

1. Distances for all locations worldwide should be given in miles. For all countries other than the UK and the US a conversion into kilometres should be provided on the first use (but not for the UK and the US).
2. In the UK and the US all speeds should be given in mph (no conversion). For all other countries, speeds should be given in mph first, but also converted into km/h on first use.
3. Personal height and weight should be given in feet and inches and in stones and pounds respectively (with conversion into metres and kilograms respectively).
4. Aircraft altitudes should be given in feet; conversion to metric (in parentheses) is permitted but not necessary.
5. Mountain heights should be given first in metric units (feet in parentheses).

   Does anyone else see a problem here, in regard the aircraft-mountain interface? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

6. Volumes should be given in metric units with the exception of pints of beer and cider.
7. Milk is sold in pint bottles and litre containers (but no explicit recommendation).
8. Use metric (i.e. litres) for petrol and fuel. Conversion is not required.
9. Fuel consumption should be given in miles per gallon.

For the following topics the "overwhelming preference" is for metric

• sport
• foreign
• engineering
• scientific
• foodstuffs and liquids in cookery

- - - end of contents - - -

---

Comment on the guidelines as presented above

First I would like to thank Boson for putting up this summary of the Times Style Guide. Just having this summary available is very helpful, for it shows the striking similarities and the striking differences between the Times and MOSNUM's recommendations. Here are a few that I believe we could adopt for UK articles:

• A statement that the UK is slowly transitioning to the metric system may be of value.
• Either stating that milk is sold in pint bottles and litre containers, or, better, removing the item entirely.
• As well as stating that engineering and scientific articles are metric, this should be extended to sports, where appropriate.

On the other hand, there are some recommendations that we would not take up, like having speeds only in MPH, avoiding the use of square kilometres or permitting aircraft altitudes just in feet. Michael Glass (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the link to The Times Style Guide

• Glad to see this issue is now being discussed on its merits, but can we do one simple thing right away - everyone seems to agree that the present "link" serves no purpose as it doesn't take you anywhere near any Times Style Guide, so is just going to annoy people who (like me) click on it and wonder WTF. If there is no immediate consensus on whether and what link should replace it, would there be any objection to just removing the present link (without altering the overlying text, although I don't particularly see why the Times guide should be singled out - are other such guides not also available?) W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal. My rationale above. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal of the dead link as proposed by W. P. Uzer. Michael Glass (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal of the link as proposed by W. P. Uzer (per my detailed explanation above and without prejudice to later removal of the explicit verbal reference to The Times Style Guide). --Boson (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
    • PS: Oppose temporary link to the archived copy because it is unnecessary and would possibly violate copyright policy. --Boson (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support replacement with the archived version in the Wayback Machine that Wee Curry Monster has mentioned. As for directing people to the Times style guide, since certain Times style guidelines contradict Wikipedia's own ones, as Boston and Michael Glass have demonstrated above, we should explicitly say which parts of the Times guide should be used when editing Wikipedia; or better, we should have our own guideline that is sufficient for all Wikipedia articles, and use the Times, Oxford and/or other relevant guidelines as sources. But this is a separate issue from removing or replacing a dead link. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose User:Michael Glass has a track record of editing against consensus to favour the metric system on UK related topics in direct contravention of WP:MOSNUM. The subject of UK units is constantly being raised by that editor, in almost all cases arguing over trivia in an effort to portray the UK as more metric than it is. If that editor wants UK articles to go down the wholly metric route, raise an RFC and convince the community on the basis of the strength of their argument. But the method adopted of a war of attrition raising the topic ad nauseum to try and chip away at the policy guidelines is simply irritating and is entrenching attitudes against them. We need a guideline because editors like this will game the system, they have a track record of gaming the system and using wikilawyering to edit against consensus. I oppose any weakening of policy recommendations because experience over a number of years demonstrates they simply cannot be trusted to edit in line with policy and consensus and the slightest chink in policy will be exploited to edit in a manner that is disruptive and leading to numerous edit wars. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

WCM has apparently forgotten his own chequered history on Wikipedia. In any case, his ad hominem attack is irrelevant to the question at issue, which is whether or not to remove a dead link. Michael Glass (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• • • @Wee Curry Monster:But none of the above argumentation indicates, suggests or explains how or why the link is of any practical use except as some symbolic line in the sand against the evil and devious Mr. Glass. The biggest problems with it have been stated above; plus the link is nearly ten years old and is surely obsolete. It's you lot that are hanging on to nostalgia. Please deal with the substance and come to 2014. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Historically, the Times style guide was chosen as it best represented UK usage and still does. Its a style guide adopted as best approximating appropriate use in the UK. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
        • It has nothing to do with nostalgia and it is not obsolete, the UK has not fundamentally changed in the last ten years in this area. As I have repeatedly pointed out, as a professional engineer I use the metric system exclusively and as an engineer I would prefer to see its use. The reason I don't endorse wholesale metrication of UK metric articles on wikipedia is simply because we should reflect unit choices that makes articles easier for readers to understand, which in certain limited circumstances means we give preference to the unit most commonly used. If you want it to be different, convince other editors to change policy but being patronising about it won't help your case. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
          • My comment was addressing the use of the link as a function of time. Sure some things change and others don't – I know that beer is still served in pints in pubs, but not any more for the tinned variety; a bit like milk. That things haven't fundamentally changed is your assertion. If you are resisting metrication, it's in your interest to hang on to that Times link for as long as you can. In ten years, we will still be stuck in a time warp if no free style guide on UK measurements is available. But unless we do a comprehensive study in a proper and transparent manner from time to time, there is no way of reliably establishing actual practice at regular intervals. So talking about nostalgia isn't being patronising but about being practical because reflecting "actual practice" is the name of the game as I understand how you peeps want to play it. Using the link is a humongous red herring. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
          • As far as I can recall, the Times was sort of referred to because it was the only UK one we could lay our hands on for free, and was acceptable because all we were looking for was an approximation of actual practice at the time. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
            • @Wee Curry Monster:How can it be not easy for readers to understand when our rules requires a conversion into the other (in parentheses) when either a metric or an imperial measure is used? The only danger is if our reader comes from a civilisation that cannot relate to either. I wonder if they have the same bickering over the "imperial tael" and the "metric tael" (ditto the catty) over at zh.wp? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support removal of the Time style guide. The use of an archived link is tenuous at best. As I've said previously, I do not think that the Times style guide should be referenced to the exclusion of other British style guides. I figure that, if we are to link them, we should link a variety, or cite printed versions. I do not see the removal of this link as opening up a wave of metrication. Our style guide will still stand. In the event that more arguments are had about changing various items in our style guide, other style guides can be referenced in said debate. In other words, the text of the style guide should still ask the reader to "consult major British style guides" for information on appropriate usage. However, it should not send them to a dead/archived link to one style guide. RGloucester — ☎ 15:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose removal of the Times. There is clear benefit to referencing an outside style guide that is trying to approximate British usage, exactly as we are trying to do.

Let us not pretend we do not know from many years of experience what will happen if we remove it. We will be told, within weeks, that we made the whole thing up. We will be told, within weeks, that the current guidance is unsourced and that the fact that that editor can find one website that gives distances in kilometres means that the British all use kilometres really and just put miles on the road signs to confuse foreigners. It's happened before. Many times.

The use of sources here is a good idea for exactly the same reasons as it is a good idea on articles. We don't use sources on articles just because WP:V tells us to. We use them so that our facts can be checked as needed by readers. Exactly the same benefit is available here by citing the source that our advice is based on. Kahastok talk 18:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It should not be this difficult to remove a dead link that sends readers on a wild-goose chase looking for an eleven-year old style guide that we don't even agree with. We are telling readers to go and look at a style guide while actually sending them to the front page of The Times. We are not just citing it, and if we were citing it, as in an article, it would probably deserve a {{Failed verification}} tag. —Boson (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In fact, the Guardian's style guide is more in line with ours than that of the Times. RGloucester — ☎ 19:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't. The Guardian advises that we measure all liquids in pints. Quite rightly, we don't come anywhere near that.

There seems to be some pushing on this spurious argument that it must be everything or nothing. There is room in the middle ground between following the Times religiously and ignoring it entirely. That's what we do here. The advice is our own, based on the Times, but adapted to our own needs. And it is sensible that we actually demonstrate that it has some basis in usage. Kahastok talk 19:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian DOES NOT advise that all liquids be measured in pints. It does not, as you said in your edit summary, advise that petrol be measured in pints. It says that miles and pints are acceptable units to use in certain circumstances. Regardless, the fundamental problem with the Times link is that it isn't easily accessible or current. If someone can provide a present printed copy to verify, then scan it up and let's see it. RGloucester — ☎ 19:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It says, "We use the metric system for weights and measures; exceptions are the mile and the pint." That doesn't say that the mile and pint are merely "acceptable units to use in certain circumstances". There is no get-out or middle ground. It says - without any form of qualification whatsoever - that miles and pints are exceptions to metrication. You have to do some pretty serious inference to suggest that they advise anything other than the pint for petrol.

The fact remains that it is useful to cite the source for the advice, for the reasons I have given. And I remain opposed to the attempt to remove it. Kahastok talk 20:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"Serious inference" or common sense? The Guardian's style guide assumes that the reader is capable of common sense, as should we here. If one reads the whole damn thing, it is quite clear that it is not asking one to use pints for petrol. Petrol isn't sold by the pint. It isn't quoted by the pint. Search for Guardian articles on petrol prices, and one will quickly see that they use litres for reference to petrol. What a surprise! RGloucester — ☎ 23:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Now you're inferring a policy from individual instances of usage. People don't always follow their own style guides. We have the official Guardian policy, and it calls for the use of pints as an exception to metrication, without any form of qualification or conditionality whatsoever in any part of the guide. If a Guardian article uses litres for petrol, they're breaking their own style guide.

And there is a wider point here. The argument above, that you seemed to endorse, is that if we base our rules the Times, we must use all of the rules in the Times, applied absolutely religiously, regardless of common sense or Wikipedia norms. And yet the same does not seem to apply to the Guardian! The Guardian's guide we are allowed to adapt and interpret, but that is absolutely forbidden for the Times. I see no reason why common sense should be allowed to apply to one but not the other. Kahastok talk 23:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with the argument that if the Times is used, it must be solely used as the basis of our rules. I merely do not like the Times as a source, as no current link to the present guide is available. The Guardian's guide is accessible, and is mostly in line with our guidelines.

I'm sure when reading that style guide, you do not feel that it meant that "pints" were the only liquid unit of measurement that is acceptable? It merely meant that the only acceptable non-SI units that could be used were "miles and pints". But never mind.

If we must have basis for the style guide, as you say, in "sources", then the sources need be easily accessible and current. I'm not so sure we even need "sources", as this is our style guide, and we get to make it however we choose. We could say: "All measurements of length must take place using the barleycorn". Nevertheless, if we MUST have sources, then our sources mustn't be as mucky as the Times. RGloucester — ☎ 00:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly. Style guides are not a statement of fact but of editorial preference, and we shouldn't confuse the two. We don't need to rely on a duff Times link, and it's clear that we don't even base ourselves on any version of "Ye Times Stile Gyde", let alone one that's a decade old. Talking about "official Guardian policy [calling] for the use of pints for all liquids without any form of qualification" is picking at hairs because there's a lot more in the Times guide that we don't follow, and I that RG brought up The Guardian as a closer approximation to our practice is perfectly reasonable suggestion. Although it's not the "rigidity" that some may prefer. Some claim that we are basing usage on The Times, so we're still capable of picking and choosing. Why not pick and choose from a buffet that's closer to our tastes?

  Our MOS has never been prescriptive, as such an approach is usually frowned upon as instruction creep, but seems to exist here as an anomaly. Kahastok and WCM seem to want the MOS to be ultra-rigid, to protect Wikipedia against one evil and devious editor. But this is the tail wagging the dog. The way to deal with disruptive editors is not to pile on a mountain of rules, but to have the disrupter(s) banned or blocked for their disruption. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, Please don't take Kahastok and WCM's threats at face value. They've been making the same threat for at least a year. The threats, the bullying and the rest are just a ploy to derail any discussion about changing MOSNUM in a direction they don't like. It's disruptive but it has helped derail any change in MOSNUM for years. It's last triumph was to derail my proposal to provide a better link to their beloved Times Style Guide' on the ground that because I proposed it it must be wrong. Michael Glass (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean you're not evil? ;-) We have not always seen eye to eye, but I know what a useless link is. I think most people will also see that's the case, even if some editors refuse to admit it. Such intransigence and rhetoric in the face of the obvious is regrettable, and not removing a bad link (or rather, deliberately leaving it there) reflects poorly on us collectively. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've never argued that these rules should be "ultra-rigid", nor applied them ultra-rigidly. That's a bit of a caricature that originated from an editor who insists that the rules can either be a strait-jacket or a free-for-all, and that there can be nothing in between.

My view has always been that variation is good and proper - if there is a good reason for it. I included such flexibility explicitly in this rule in my suggestion at User:Kahastok/Units2. But what is so frequently proposed - the "can is not must" proposals - is wordings that we know will be interpreted as allowing variation even if the only reason is a single editor's personal preference.

We don't allow people to switch from AD to CE purely for reasons of personal preference. We don't allow people to switch from MDY to DMY without good reason. Personal preference should not be an acceptable reason to vary from this rule either.

The choice of units we use is based on the Times, not the Guardian. Of course we include conversions, and of course we don't use it as a reason to use miles globally. It would be very odd if we allowed our measure of British usage to dictate usage everywhere or to override other rules in this section. That does not change the fact that the choice is based on the Times. If the Guardian is similar, again, that's all well and good - demonstrates we're on the right track. But does not change the fact that the choice is based on the Times. Kahastok talk 10:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's disputing that The Times is the one that we mention in the guideline. The fact that The Guardian is closer to our usage is related but is a separate issue, and I'm sorry I digressed. As Uzer points out, the proposal is only about removing the duff link. Full Stop. We all know The Times exists and that it has a website. We also all know that Rupert has put everything behind a paywall; the value of a link to the home page of the Times is zero. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think some perspective is needed here; this is an obscure footnote on an obscure guideline we're talking about. My original proposal was just to remove a link which is dead, so that people don't waste time clicking it and wondering what's going on. Not to change the fact that we mention the Times (though someone else might want to propose that). Am I right in saying that no argument has been given for retaining the dead link, nor has anyone disputed the fact that it is dead? W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I am amazed that this is even being discussed. A dead link has no place on Wikipedia. If I knew which link it was about I would just remove it to end this absurd discussion. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about the link to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and_services/specials/style_guide/article986731.ece in Footnote 9 in section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Other articles. Since the link is dead, it automatically redirects to the front page of today's Times, which – surprisingly – has nothing about metric units. --Boson (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Uzer, Dondervogel 2 and Boson: Wikipedia:Link rot recommends replacement of dead links with a link to an archived version, and states: "do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer" [emphasis in original]. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be primarily about links that are added as references for information in articles. The reason given for retaining it is that it might be possible to replace it with an archived link - we can do that here if people think it's a good idea (in spite of the fact that it will not be updated as the world changes) and if it doesn't constitute a breach of copyright, as was suggested above.But since we are all now aware of the issue and how to find the archived or paywalled link should we want to use them, there isn't any point in keeping the non-functioning link on the page for people to click and be baffled. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

PS I've just found that the Style guide article already does link to the archived version of the guide, so if there's a copyright problem, then that article has it too. Oh, but I've also found WP:COPYLINK, which explicitly states that linking to Wayback is OK. So seems copyright is not an issue here. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, that refers to citations in references, which do not have to be accessible online, provided that they are available in a library or the like, as with normal scholarly references. It does not apply to links where we are basically teling the reader to read and observe what is written there, thus de facto incorporating the content into Wikipedia. This, together with the fact that the content was moved behind a paywall (with all that implies about the copyright holder's intent), raises copyright concerns not addressed by the reference to archives at WP:COPYLINK. However, I am not a copyright expert. I have no copyright-related qualms about stating that our MoS is based inter alia on information contained in The Times Style and Usage Guide (of which I habe a copy) and providing a normal citation, for instance as follows:

• Austin, Tim (2003). The Times Style and Usage Guide. Times Books. ISBN 9780007145058.

That should address concerns raised by one editor that we should indicate our sources (to show that we were not making it up, etc.).

I do have concerns (inter alia) about giving undue weight to this particular guide. It would probably be more appropriate to refer to the article you mention, or more specifically to the relevant section: Style guide#Journalism. I have less concerns about the link to the online archive there because it does not instruct the reader, by implication, to read and observe the content. My main concern, which is only tangentially relevant to the issue of the link is that we appear to be telling editors to comply with a journalistic house style, whereas I believe Wikipedia should base its house style on the typical usage of encyclopaedias etc. --Boson (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree that we should not give undue weight to the Times style guide. If we do not have a guide that is sufficient for all articles whose subjects are related to the United Kingdom, then we should either create one, and use the relevant existing style guides as references, or direct editors to a style guide that is appropriate for editing an encyclopaedia. I do not think that we should be telling editors to use the Times style guide for editing Wikipedia articles. However, this is a separate issue to whether we should replace a dead link to a web page. Boson's argument that we should handle references and "further reading" external links differently is consistent with Wikipedia:External links#What can be done with a dead external link, so if there are concerns about implicit encouragement of potential copyright infringement, then I would support a link to Special:BookSources/9780007145058, as Boson suggested, instead of the Internet Archive. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should give it undue weight, but I don't think we do now. We do not tell editors to "use the Times style guide for editing Wikipedia articles" - the wording is Note the style guides of British publications such as Times Online (under "Metric"). At the end of a long footnote. I do not believe that any significant number of editors is credibly going to read this and believe that the Times guide overrides the rule outlined in the text.

I see no reason for copyright concern about using the Wayback Machine when our own policy on copyrights says explicitly say that this is allowed. There is nothing in the rule that suggests that it only applies to citations.

I believe I have mentioned my months-old suggestion at User:Kahastok/Units2 several times in this discussion. The formula there is the following approximation to local usage (broadly based on the style guide of The Times) is applied. Kahastok talk 19:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I see it has been proposed elsewhere on this page that we should bundle four problems together. We can expect that this will lead nowhere, since we cannot get consensus to change everything at once; we know this from past experience. So I suggest that we should just stick to the issue of the Times reference here, since we seem to have already reached consensus. The proposal was "to remove the link to The Times Style Guide". There is broad consensus to do that (with only two opposing, by my count), so I suggest we remove the link immediately and then start new – very focussed and therefore very brief – discussions on

1. whether we should remove the footnote completely (and possibly include a statement similar to what you suggested, indicating what the MoS recommendations are based on).
2. whether we should specifically mention only The Times
3. whether we should provide external links (as opposed to normal citations for verification) to any style guides that we do mention.

We should be able to quickly establish consensus on those points too, if we don't bundle these very simple issues with everything else.

—Boson (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The footnote should not be removed. I spent ages before trying to get it moved into the body. Even though that failed, removing the footnote should not be on the table. It is essential that directions for what to do in cases of conflict are given. RGloucester — ☎ 02:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Boson: good suggestion. My answers: 1/Probably no, better as a footnote than in the body, but we definitely need a firm statement of principles and maybe some examples; 2/No; 3/No. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Since no-one's given any reason for retaining it (and I can hardly imagine there would be any such reason), I've removed (commented out) the pointless and confusing link that is supposed to go to a Times style guide but does nothing of the sort. I also changed "Times Online" to just "The Times", since I don't think there is a separate style guide for the online version of the Times. The sentence in question now provides a link to an article on style guides which in turn contains references to a number a newspaper style guides, including the Times. In fact the statement in the footnote says style guides for newspapers such as the Times (formerly: Times Online), which doesn't imply the Times one is any more authoritative than any others, so we could remove "such as the Times" with no change of meaning, but I've left it there for now. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I haven't undone your WP:BOLD move WPUzer, I have replaced it with a link to the wayback machine.

• Should we remove footnote? Absolutely not, the footnote is there for a reason. Its to give guidelines on usage specific to UK articles without cluttering the main text.
• Whether we should specifically mention only The Times? Is a leading question along the lines of should be stop beating our wives. The Times has been mentioned as an example and as such remains relevant.
• Whether we should provide external links (as opposed to normal citations for verification) to any style guides that we do mention? Absolutely, yes we should, every time there is any ambiguity its used to game the system.

The suggestion that this is a strait jacket instructing users they must follow the style guide is a red herring, its there to provide guidance and historically its been done for a very good reason. That very good reason is that ambiguity is and has been used repeatedly to advance external agendas by pressure groups such as "Metric Matters" to impose metrication on wikipedia that doesn't reflect general usage in the UK. Equally we've had a spot of cultural imperialism from across the pond insisting its got to be imperial.

And what everyone seems to forget, we have a policy of reflecting local usage, so as to provide information in the best form for our READERS to understand. Leave your personal preference at home people and think of the people we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia for. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a minor point - there was nothing bold (or WP:BOLD) about my edit - it was based on long and tedious discussion and the consensus that apparently resulted, which is quite the antithesis of what BOLD means. W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I note your point that we should consider the best phrasing of the questions, though I do not agree that anything is analogous to "have you stopped beating your wife?" If you really wanted to use that analogy, it might be considered analogous to a situation where there was a recommendation to beat lots of women, including your wife, and I asked whether we should

1. reject the recommendation suggestion completely
2. remove the specific mention of your wife
3. link to any instructions on wife-beating that we choose to include.

However, I don't think such analogies are very helpful, so perhaps we could just ask whether we should name one or more style guides and whether we should refer to newspapers' style guides at all.

--Boson (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This is what I was trying to avoid, because we seem to be unable to get consensus on everything at once. I share some of the views expressed above, but I think we should discuss each issue separately (i.e. in separate sections, and preferably later). Otherwise, we will be back to the endless circular discussions most of us remember from last time. It is simply not an effective way of doing things.

Though there appears to be consensus that the dead link needs to be removed, as yet, no consensus has been established whether we should replace it with a link to the Wayback machine or not. I think the relevant arguments have al been discussed, so we need to answer the simple question:

• After removing the dead link, should we replace it with a link to the archived version at the Wayback machine? :--Boson (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly support having separate discussions, ideally without the usual character assassinations directed at Michael Glass, which are tedious and do not help in the formation of any sort of consensus. It particularly interests me that the Times guide, which is if anything a wee bit more conservative than ours, states that the overwhelming preference is for metric in sport and engineering. I was only barely able to persuade other editors to agree to allow the use of the metric-first style for engineering-related articles where the original units are metric; the compromise (in my view, a sensible one) was that imperial units could be preferred for older pre-metric engineering such as Brunel. I have occasionally made the point that in many sports the official measurements of height and weight are indeed metric, but this has also been ignored; I recall that Michael Glass made a similar suggestion to this effect, but certain other editors ignored it, deciding that they preferred to obsess over the ever-fascinating topic of Michael Glass, rather than discussing which units are used in different sports. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who you're referring to there. I do not believe the proposals on sports ever moved beyond the notion that we should create a list of sports where people are to be measured in stones and pounds in UK-related articles, a list where they are to be measured in pounds, and a list where they are to be measured in kilograms. The guideline is already complicated enough, there is no benefit to us, to the editor or to the reader in our adding a vast quantity of needless extra complication. Far better, in sports where weight in specific system is significant, to accept that variations are appropriate if there is a genuinely good reason for them.

On Boson's three points, I feel that the footnote serves a useful purpose, that the Times specifically is useful because it is the source of the advice, and that a link is a good idea for clarity, in case readers wish to inspect the source we used, and loses us nothing. I oppose adding a claim that the advice was based on style guides that it is not in fact based on. Kahastok talk 18:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why it would be considered excessive to give instructions as to which units to use for different sports, when we're already talking about pints of milk (is this guideline relevant to even a single article?). I'd like to think that editorial discretion could be relied upon to use the standard that prevails in the relevant sport, but when we have editors who would apparently read style guidelines in such an unnaturally pedantic way that they would see the Guardian as requiring the use of pints for fuel (or the volume of the Pacific Ocean, say) then maybe this is too much to hope for.

I don't care much about the Times link either way, but I agree with W. P. Uzer and others that having a dead link is an absolute nonsense, and keeping it there for manifestly political reasons is doubly so. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. That Times link should not be included ... at least not framed, as now, as a sole or primary authority. Tony (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarity of the UK metric/imperial guidance

My impression on looking at the whole section in question is that it's generally so complex and imprecise that, even in the unlikely event of an editor consulting it, they'll probably just give up and go and do what they were going to do anyway. I notice on an article like Cheshire that there's a right old mix of formats (sometimes km with miles in brackets, sometimes miles with km in brackets, sometimes just km - there are also cases of km2 for areas with sq m. in brackets), and having read the guidance here, I'm still none the wiser as to which format is "supposed" to be used in such an article. Linking people to external style guides which may or may not be wholly or partially applicable to Wikipedia isn't going to help much either. I see this issue is already receiving far more attention than it deserves, so I don't think I shall be adding any more of my own tuppences to the discussion, but I suggest you all try to remember the end user of all this stuff and try to give her or him either clear instructions, or no instructions at all. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There are clear instructions.

For distances in the UK, this should generally be miles. So it should simply be 12 miles (19 km) for example. The reason you see an odd mixture, is that some editors who advocate use of the metric system deliberately take it upon themselves to edit contrary to WP:MOSNUM. So we see articles that become a beggars muddle. Equally we see editors in this camp besieging whole wikiprojects and converting them wholesale to the metric system. The Falkland Islands Workgroup was literally paralysed for nearly two years by two editors insisting that they should become a shining metric example.

There are several pressure groups out there that see wikipedia as mechanism for advocating that the UK switches wholly over to the metric system (if you want to find evidence of this simply google "Metric Matters" or "Metric Views" and you'll recognise several contributors who openly talk about this on their forums). The fact that the UK hasn't is a complete anathema to them and they're constantly coming to WT:MOSNUM raising trivial questions suggesting that the metric system has greater usage than it actually does. A simple search of the archives of WT:MOSNUM will show that the subject of metrication is raised on UK articles on a weekly/monthly cycle since 2007 by the same editors. That people see this and groan "oh no, not again" may have something to do with that simple fact.

The same individuals see the groan "oh no, not again" response as "character assasination" whilst at the same time addressing anyone who has the temerity to suggest that imperial measurements still have use in the UK as if they are some neo-conservative, knuckle-dragging, imbecelic luddite.

Like I've said many times, if you want Wikipedia to go metric, start an RFC and convince the project. The war of attrition over trivia is really not the way to do it. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

But why should I believe you about what the consensus is, rather than them? Has it been agreed at some point by some sufficiently large group of people that in general articles related to the UK (like Cheshire) we should always put miles and square miles first, and km and km2 in brackets? It makes no difference to me either way, but if that's the agreement, should the guideline not state that clearly, so that someone with an automated script can go around with a clear conscience fixing all such articles? W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't care whether you believe me or not but I suggest you read WP:AGF. WP:MOSNUM is clear that distance in UK articles is one of those occasions where the imperial unit (mile) should be put first. The guidelines are clear on this. And one of the editors currently socking to flout their indefinite block and topic ban was topic banned and then blocked for a ridiculous edit war over this. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Small clarification: the guidelines don't say that area units are ever imperial-first.

The trouble with saying "just put miles first" is that lots of things are actually measured in kilometres, and a blunt rule ignores this distinction ("6.2-mile race"). The fact that the imperial units are used on road signs is relevant to roads, but not necessarily to other things. For example, hydrology uses metric units, but are we to say that the units used in the real world aren't relevant in this case? This seems like pro-imperial cherry-picking. There are lots of things like stones which are used in British culture but are not officially used as units of measure (except perhaps in some sports). It's also simplistic to the point of silliness to pretend that British people don't use or understand metric units: my own understanding of imperial weight units is that stones mean approximately nothing to me, and with a bit of mental effort I can make sense of a number in pounds. Individuals can choose to measure themselves in whatever units they want, but it's not obvious why this is relevant to an encyclopedia.

Please stop pretending that it's just Michael Glass who is dissatisfied with the UK units situation, and that anyone who wants UK articles to use metric units more consistently (at the very least, where they are the officially-used units in the UK) is a mindless fanatic. I've never tried to argue that imperial units aren't used, but I have argued that in many cases the metric units are in official use, and this is something which an encyclopedia (which generally strives to reflect more formal/professional/official usage) cannot ignore, especially where the preference in other articles is for metric units. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

So are we to understand that (in Cheshire, for example) distances are to be given in miles first, but areas in square kilometres first? Can anyone link me to a discussion where any of this was agreed by consensus? It seems rather a strange way of doing things, given that one of the aims of this guidance is allegedly to provide consistency. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Consistency would be to pick a system of units and use it, in the absence of sound reason to the contrary. Muddled as it is, the existing MOSNUM guidance is to prefer the metric system, with a list of exceptions. Area units aren't given as an exception, which is what I meant. If you say that square miles are preferred over square kilometres, this might give a semblance of greater consistency with miles vs. km as distance measurements, but it would cause inconsistency with other area measures (hectares vs. acres and square metres vs. square yards and square feet). I'm not convinced that creating an additional muddle in the area units is worthwhile, especially considering that the imperial area units are officially deprecated in the UK. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• I would ask Mr Uzer to please read previous debates here at MOSNUM for more information on how the present guidelines were decided. The point of this guide, insomuch as it has been "based on the Times", is that it is meant to mimic British usage as closely as it can. British usage is mixed. As a result, units from different systems are mixed. It is not that hard to comprehend. Perhaps I'd personally prefer us to choose one or the other, but that will never achieve consensus by virtue of the controversial nature of this topic. While I do not presume that you are doing this intentionally, it feels like you are digging up old wounds. RGloucester — ☎ 15:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm just trying to get clarity. If there is no overall consensus on a particular issue, that can still be said clearly, and left to be worked out article by article. At the moment it isn't even clear on what matters there is a consensus and on what matters there isn't. But no-one seems to care about this dysfunctionality of the guideline, being too busy with personal accusations and/or pushing their own respectively pro-imperial or pro-metric viewpoints. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The guidance is to use miles for distances and for consistency most people would use sq mi for area. As usual because we don't specify this in MOSNUM some will use sq km first instead out of sheer bloody mindedness. And for a 10 km race most people would sensibly describe it as a 10 km race per WP:IAR and that particular example is raising trivia again; MOSNUM would already allow you to use km for races where it is appropriate. MOSNUM is supposed to be a simple guideline, it gives general guidelines and makes the extremely naive assumption editors can use common sense and consensus to ensure articles are consistent. We seem a lack of common sense as editors argue from a position of advocacy not what is best for readers or the articles.

And please cut the luddite accuations, they're getting boring. I have already explained my position and to continue accuse me of editing tp favour the imperial system is simply an example of Projection bias. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody else has used the term "luddite" in this discussion, and I wasn't making any accusations specifically against you. Regarding area, if you're talking in square metres and hectares, then the natural progression is to km²; it would be unnatural and clumsy to switch suddenly to square miles. It's unfair to dismiss that as "bloody-mindedness"; it's more like a desire for consistency and a rational choice of units (1 km² = 100 ha; 1 sq mi = 259 ha, so obviously the units don't relate to one another in anything like a natural way). Even if you don't agree that using one system units consistently is better for the encyclopedia, it's very uncharitable to accuse other editors who do believe this of acting in bad faith.

I don't think it is "raising trivia" to voice concerns that the "miles-first" rule might be invoked inappropriately when this has actually happened; some editors have repeatedly tried to argue that trains in the UK with nominal speed limits in km/h may not be described primarily in that unit, which I view as just as silly as requiring editors to write about "6.2-mile races". A 70 km/h speed limit is not a "43 mph" speed limit. Even at my most "zealous" I have never argued that nominal quantities in imperial units should be given in metric-first.

Many British publications do deliberately choose to prefer the metric system (indeed, pretty much any vaguely technical publication does), so it's hardly an unreasonable suggestion for Wikipedia, at least in more technical or specialist articles. If horses can be described in hands, which is a unit that most people will find obscure, then why can athletes not be weighted in kilograms, which is not an obscure unit at all? We can at least aim for a wee bit more consistency than that. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Please point me to where I suggested you personally edited out of "bloody-mindedness"; I commented that some editors deliberately do so and yes we have had examples of editors doing that. Equally we've had numerous examples of editors arguing MOSNUM needs to be changed because of some trivial example they've found. Examples:

• Miles are used for road distance but perhaps because Motorway Location Signs use km MOSNUM should mention that as an exemption.
• Milk is bought and sold in pints but perhaps because some imports come in litres, MOSNUM should mention this as an exemption.

I could go on but the point is made. As it stands every example you've just listed, is permissible within the limits of MOSNUM. These recommendations are partly based on the style guides of certain British newspapers, including The Times, [8] The Guardian,[9] and The Economist.[10] If there is disagreement about the main units used in a UK-related article, discuss the matter on the article talk-page, at MOSNUM talk, or both. If consensus cannot be reached, refer to historically stable versions of the article and retain the units used in these as the main units.

If there is a good reason, discuss it, the example would be that a consensus to change the recommendation on engineering related articles was relatively easy to achieve. And by the way you've repeatedly made what I would politely describe as uncharitable remarks or barbs aimed at me, so preaching about civility rings hollow. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, in the cases raised there is no question as to the correct unit - no need to rely on the common sense exception. The advice is clear that "Nominal and defined quantities should be given in the original units first, even if this makes the article inconsistent". I have previously proposed to make this significantly more prominent as it is a clear and expressed exception to all of the rules.

Except in really exceptional circumstances (and I can't think of what they would be), nobody, anywhere on Wikipedia, should be expressing a race with a defined distance of 10 kilometres using miles as primary. Even on articles clearly related to the UK or US. Same goes for speed limits - the unit in which the speed limit is defined goes first, even if that's in furlongs per fortnight on an article about France.

Incidentally, I still object to our claiming that the advice is based on any style guide that it is not in fact based on. The only mention of the Economist style guide is in Curry Monster's comment when he quoted the advice as it was at the time, so it is difficult to see from where any editor has divined a consensus for it. I also do not see consensus to include the Guardian in the quote, and note with interest that the Telegraph is not also in the frame to be included. Kahastok talk 18:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The text says "Note the style guides of British publications such as..." Why would anyone object to following that with a list of several such style guides rather than one? It is not being stated that those style guides are the basis for our own guidance - it is simply being suggested that if (as is likely) you still don't know what to do after reading our own guidance, you might like to seek inspiration from other guides. If we think we're helping people by making such a suggestion, we may as well give them several such links if we're aware of them, to save them the trouble of looking them out for themselves. I really have no idea how this triviality has become an edit-warring issue. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually feel we'd be better off citing it explicitly as where the advice came from, partly because people seem to think that the current wording can be construed as overriding the rule provided, and because that is the whole point in citing the style guide in the first place.

As I say, I reverted because I object to it being claimed that the advice was based on guides that it was not in fact based on, and because I saw no consensus for any particular change other than the Wayback Machine. Kahastok talk 21:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be true that (probably before my time ) there was some discussion that included The Times style guide and resulted in a previous version of this guideline, but apart from this historical sense, the guideline is not - in any meaningful way - currently based on The Times style guide, any more than a shirt that is four sizes too large and has three sleeves can be said to fit because it touches the body in some parts, and the extra sleeve can be draped over the shoulder. The Times style guide differs substantially from the current guideline. To state that this guideline is based on it is grossly misleading. Even saying it is broadly based on this and other guides is stretching it a lot. If there is no consensus on the exact wording, the reference to this style guide should be removed completely. --Boson (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That would need consensus. The status quo (i.e. replacement of the link with one from the Wayback Machine) appeared to get consensus in the above discussion. But there is no clear consensus to remove it.

I do not accept that the current rule is anything like as different from the Times guide as you claim. Yes, there are clear differences between our rules and theirs - we've adapted the rules for our purposes and audiences - but basically they're calling for the same things to be imperial-first and the same things to be metric-first. Not identical, but very similar.

(There are two places where we're different. Hands for horses, as discussed below, came in from consensus at WP:EQUINE, and feet for aircraft altitude is most common throughout the world so it would be odd to treat it as UK-specific. There are also differences in the details of conversions - but we don't care because this isn't the rule on conversions. It doesn't mean that the choice of units isn't similar.)

On the other hand, anyone who compares the two will see that your claim that the rule was partly based on the Economist is absurd. Kahastok talk 23:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, there was a clear consensus to remove the link, which was done. That was followed by some bold edits and reverts, and no consensus has been established on anything else. I am waiting for things to settle down a bit before addressing the way forward from the last established consensus (rather than any arbitrary current status depending on who last edited). I briefly listed the main issues regarding the footnote where consensus still needs to be determined. If we just continue calmly, point by point, without haste and without rancour, there need be no great problem.

If you actually compare our current guideline with The Times style guide, you will see clear differences. Anyone who followed The Times style guide would be in clear violation of our guideline on many issues, particularly on when conversion is necessary. You could, and should of course, use your common sense and ignore much of it, but then why point readers there in the first place? If our guideline were based solely on The Times style guide it would also be inappropriate. We have no business basing our usage on a single style guide written for journalistic use. This is one of the main problems that underlies a lot of the dissent: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We should follow the usage in serious books. Newspapers have very different requirements: for instance, they tend to be less formal and they have a greater need to save space; they are also allowed to have a progressive or reactionary viewpoint; British newspapers are allowed to refer to "the Queen" (or even "the Queen Mum"), and the general readership knows which queen is meant, etc. etc. --Boson (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It only says "Note the style guides ... such as ...", in a footnote; it's hardly a big deal, and is not delegating any authority. I wish people would focus more on making the substance of our guideline clearer. For example, if it's in fact the consensus that we always put miles before kilometres but that with square miles and square kilometres it's article-by-article, then that should be stated explicitly, with examples even. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sure we would all welcome a clear guideline that reflects consensus. I suggest you put forward a proposal of the form "I propose replacing old text with new text because that better describes the existing consensus". --Boson (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There has been numerous attempts to provide improved guidance:

User:Kahastok/Units
User:RGloucester/units
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Units

If you want to know why this is so difficult refer to User talk:Michael Glass#Horses, "three very determined and dyed in the wool conservative blue rinses" and "I suspect they live in mortal fear of metrication" and "these dudes are not rational". The same people making accusation of lacking good faith and ad hominem attacks. Whereas in reality, its they who have no good faith whatsoever and project such negativity into any discussion.

And to put this into perspective, the guidance is to generally favour metric but provide an imperial conversion. In a few limited circumstances reflecting common usage in the UK switch it around and put the imperial first. Its a sensible compromise.

But you know what, I actually favour metrication in the UK and standardising on the metric system. The current half-arsed position in the UK is farsical and as a professional engineer and former soldier I have used the metric system throughout my professional life. I don't however impose my personal preference in my writing on wikipedia and I can't believe I have to explain myself yet again. Some people need to grow up a great deal. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "bad faith", the very same editor who was so quick to reassure us — with no small amount of condescension — that of course the nominal units could be used first, and we are simply imagining the pro-imperial bias, was also very quick to argue that the HS2 article wasn't engineering-related, because that would mean that the dearly-beloved miles could be given precedence. In his favour, I will at least say that he did not try to argue against local consensus on the talk page, unlike the latest addition to DeFacto's sock drawer. He did, however, sacrifice a bit of credibility when he started to talk about how he didn't understand those newfangled kilometre things anyway (honestly, if you want other people to take you seriously, boasting about how you lack a basic numeracy skill, the like of which I'd expect of a competent primary-school child, is not the way to go). So perhaps there's a hint of personal preference on the other side of the fence also. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

how he didn't understand those newfangled kilometre things anyway – say what? Shome mishtake... It's one of those things on the pavement that I put coins into when I park the car, innit? ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And as to "I suspect they live in mortal fear of metrication" – it's certainly the impression that comes across strongly when metrication is mentioned, the threat that is presented by the simple addition a link to the Guardian style guide to dilute an obsolete style guide that doesn't even fit with what we are practicing, not to mention the invectives and ad hominem that appear as soon as the protagonist identifies himself as Michael Glass, or anyone who threatens the wiki-status quo. I'm just a Brit who lives outside of Blighty who likes a bit more anal consistency than the mess that is here right now, and who believes that the true extent of metrication of the UK is being deliberately understated by three dyed-in-the wool conservatives. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've never edited High Speed 2 or argued it wasn't engineering related and I am not a sock puppet of User:De Facto who I personally regard a nutter. And if you're going to continue with these accusations along with accusations of simply editing from a pro-imperial bias or any one of the other bad faith accusations I will be taking this to WP:ANI because frankly I am sick of it. Equally the stupid infantile name calling should stop now. And I really don't think the claims that we are understating the true extent of metrication in the UK help either. That is simply hysterical bullshit conspiracy crap and as usual are leading any rational discussion to become acrimonious and this is why the guidelines don't move forward. Pull your head out of your arse and stop being so fucking up yourself. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Good lord, what a silly outburst. None of that paragraph was talking about you specifically, WCM. I try to avoid calling people out, but for what it's worth, the guy who said that HS2 wasn't engineering-related and that he didn't understand kilometres was Kahastok, and the sock puppet was the recently-deceased Passy2. None of those things apply to you, lest I be misunderstood — people in this discussion seem to have problems with reading comprehension. I will however say that you are more than a bit paranoid, intemperate and needlessly hysterical. Your comments are some of the rudest in this entire discussion. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The accusations of being paranoid, intemperate and hysterical aren't helping either. Stop being a WP:DICK eh. Wee Curry Monster talk

Goodness, what a bizarre personal attack.

One of the tenets here is that if people can't tell what your view is, that's a good thing. But since it has become a thing, let me point out that I work as a scientist, am fully understanding of the concept of a kilometre, and am part of what I'm sure is a minority who would vote for immediate metrication if a referendum were held tomorrow. I am pleased that you can't tell my political view from what I write. But it is disappointing you and others feel the need to assume such bad faith.

I object to the use of Wikipedia as a means of promotion of metrication in the United Kingdom - a political goal that fundamentally conflicts with WP:NPOV. I believe that Wikipedia should use the units actually in use locally, and whether you or anyone else likes it or not, that means miles over kilometres, and the other exceptions as noted.

The view I put was that upon reading High Speed 2, the article primarily discussed politics, not engineering. It still does - unsurprisingly because we're discussing a project that does not yet exist except as a political football. I was far from the only editor to put that view here at the time. But I also pointed out that it's a matter for the talk page, not MOSNUM. And if the talk page disagrees with me then as I made clear at the time I'm perfectly happy with that. Kahastok talk 18:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misrepresented you, but some of the arguments that have been made in the past (by no means only by you) were very odd indeed, and came across as excuses not to use metric units even in cases where these were in fact the units in actual use. In any case, that entire silly misadventure ended up with DeFacto's latest smelly sock being discarded into the laundry. I seem to recall that poor arguments such as "you can't visualise a thousand metre sticks end-to-end" were also advanced at one point (for the sake of fairness, one has to ask, how easy is it to imagine 1760 three-foot rules end-to-end?).

The point that I am trying to make is that it's not obviously a political choice to prefer a particular measurement system, in the way that it would be to insist that only nice things may be written about a certain party or candidate. Indeed, many British publications do the former whilst being in no danger of doing the latter, and this does not compromise their political neutrality (which I of course agree is important for a reference work). I am not, however, arguing that Wikipedia usage should ignore real-world British usage. The units shown on road signs are relevant to roads, and the units used in physical geography are relevant to physical geography; saying "just put miles first regardless" is too coarse a rule. Geographical disciplines in the UK, such as hydrology, typically use metric units, whereas by contrast they often use US customary units in the USA (miles, acre-feet and cu ft/s etc.). That is a real distinction, I admit, which could sensibly justify the preference for US customary units in articles about hydrology in the USA.

Now, if we're talking about the Times, it's interesting to note that there is an "overwhelming preference" for metric in sport and engineering. My own philosophy is that articles on a certain sport should closely follow the units used in that sport, and likewise for engineering and science. This comes over and above relevance to particular countries. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's difficult to visualise a thousand metre rulers end-to-end. You can understand what a kilometre is without having an intuitive idea of how long a distance measured in kilometres is. It's also difficult to visualise 1760 yardsticks, but most Brits wouldn't need to. Same as most French wouldn't need to visualise a thousand metre rules end-to-end.

Let me demonstrate this to you by introducing the kilofoot. One kilofoot is one thousand feet laid end-to-end. For anyone who doesn't know the length of a foot, it's roughly the long side of an A4 sheet of paper. So, without converting into metres, kilometres or miles, you have five seconds. How far do you go if you travel 75 kilofeet? Do you leave your city? Does it take you to the next town, or the next city, or the next state/province/country?

Most people are going to have difficulty because they do not have a mental scale in kilofeet. You know what a kilofoot is, but that doesn't help. In the same way, most Brits don't have an intuitive scale in kilometres. Practically everyone under a certain age will know what a kilometre is but that doesn't mean that they can visualise 75 kilometres without converting it into miles.

What you are proposing overall is to make this rule a whole lot more complicated with a whole lot more fine distinctions. People complain it's too complicated already. Making it more complicated is a step backward in my opinion. It needs to reflect British usage, but it also needs not to be ridiculously hard to follow, and it needs not to be so vague as to be rendered meaningless (the "can is not must" argument).

I'd note that my proposal adopts a general rule that we use the units used in the country concerned, and goes on to outline what that means. But it also says that exceptions to the outline are appropriate where there is a genuinely good reason for them. I've always understood this in the existing rule but the fact that others do not make it useful to state explicitly. Kahastok talk 21:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I understand what you mean, but it's still not a very fair analogy. The kilofoot is an extremely obscure unit used to measure certain things by some engineers in one country (i.e. the USA) and the overwhelming majority of people everywhere will never even have considered measuring distances in multiples of 1000 ft, whereas the kilometre is an extremely common standard international unit of distance. It's the sole unit used in every country around us, as well as being used for lots of things in the UK, so someone who has never thought about a distance in km has probably not got out much, to say the least.

From the perspective of one British person (i.e. me), the mile is a unit I would use for driving in basically two countries on Earth, and not for very much else. I do a lot of running, skiing and cycling, and measure distances for these things in km (which is common in the UK, it's not just me by any means). Running a certain distance in km certainly gives you an intuitive feel for the size of the unit, much more than road signs do. I wouldn't normally think about distances beyond the scale of the UK in any unit other than km — I certainly don't think about things like distances to other continents, the size of the Earth, or the distance to the moon in miles. My point is that there are many contexts in which people become familiar with kilometres as a distance unit (to say nothing of the many professions in which people will use metric distance units), so comparisons with arcana like kilofeet or furlongs are not helpful.

All that being said, I am sympathetic to the idea of having a broad rule with sensible exceptions, but there is the perpetual annoyance caused by editors (like the many-headed hydra DeFacto) insisting that miles have to go first regardless, and pointing towards overly-strict rules on MOSNUM in support of their case (during his short life, Passy2 liked to insist that the HS2 article had to be imperial-first "as MOSNUM demands"). Other editors who are not aware of the context of the MOSNUM rule could easily be swayed by this sort of rhetoric. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think a cooldown period is warranted. As soon as personal attacks and arguments based on the character of editors start getting tossed around, there is no point in continuing reasonable conversation. RGloucester — ☎ 13:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree This is going nowhere. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Erratum in units table under "calorie"

There seems to be a small error in the table of units, under the entry for the calorie: "To avoid confusion SI units (gram calorie, kilogram calorie) should be used instead." The SI unit of energy is the joule, so the current phrasing is incorrect and confusing. I propose changing this to "To avoid confusion the gram calorie or kilogram calorie should be used instead, with an equivalent in SI units (J or kJ)." Archon 2488 (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The row reads "not calorie (deprecated)" so it seems that it's trying to suggest avoiding either calorie i.e. "To avoid confusion SI units (joule, kilojoule) should be used instead." after all it is talking about science/technology articles. Of course, if the sources use calories, it would probably be best to follow suit (with a conversion to SI ... but that goes without saying, right). Jimp 08:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The table now has an inherent contradiction, since it does not actually provide for the use of joule as a unit; it provides for calorie or Calorie, but then states in the comments to use joules instead.

Group	Name	Symbol	Comment
Energy
	gram calorie small calorie	cal	SI prefixes may be used with cal but not with Cal (kilocal but not kiloCal). The rules for common nouns apply to the calorie. Write 100 calories, not 100 Calories.
	kilogram calorie large calorie	Cal
	not calorie (deprecated)		In science and technology calorie usually refers to the gram calorie; in dietetics it may refer to the kilogram calorie. To avoid confusion SI units (joule, kilojoule) should be used instead.

Shouldn't joule be added as a separate row in the table? Also, I'm not sure we should necessarily advocate using joules over gram calories or kilogram calories to avoid the ambiguity of what "calorie" means. How about this?

Group	Name	Symbol	Comment
Energy
	joule	J
	gram calorie small calorie	cal	SI prefixes may be used with cal but not with Cal (kilocal, but not kiloCal). The rules for common nouns apply to the calorie (100 calories), but not to Calorie (100 Calorie, not 100 Calories).
	kilogram calorie large calorie	Cal
	not calorie (deprecated)		Ambiguous whether this may refer to the gram calorie (usually in science and technology) or kilogram calorie (usually in dietetics).

—sroc 💬 09:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The table is under the title "Specific units" by which is meant something like "units which have specific points to be made about". The joule is a plain, simple and well-behaved unit unlike the calorie with its myriad quirks and difficulties, unlike the metre with it's two different spellings, unlike the cubic centimetre with its non-standard alternative abbreviation. The table doesn't set out to list all units we're allowed to use. Thus the joule isn't there.

It seems that either you've, made some kind of typo, sroc, or whoever placed the "clarification needed" tag there was right. The line "The rules for common nouns apply to the calorie" was intended to mean that they apply to both the large and the small calorie. The link brings you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Unit names which has this to say.

Unit names are common nouns. Write them in lower case except where: common nouns take a capital; otherwise specified in the SI brochure; otherwise specified in this manual of style.

The recommendation is not to use a capital C for the large calorie (except where normally required, e.g. at the start of a sentence). I'd been ignoring this "clarification needed" tag because it seemed obvious enough to me that the word "calorie" (for a kilogram calorie) was a unit name and thus should be treated as a common noun as detailed in the link.

I agree that we shouldn't be advocating using joules over gram calories or kilogram calories to avoid the ambiguity. Are we though? It isn't even clear. First we give the rules of how to use them then we say not to. Banning the calorie would be akin to banning the foot or pound. However, it may be worth noting that conversions to SI are helpful here.

Group	Name	Symbol	Comment
Energy
	gram calorie small calorie	cal	SI prefixes may be used with the gram calorie but not with the kilogram calorie. The term kilocalorie always refers to 1,000 gram calories. kilocal is used but kiloCal is not. The rules for common nouns apply to the both the gram and kilogram calorie. Use lower case for either except where common nouns take a capital. Write 100 calories not 100 Calories. Whether to use gram or kilogram calories is context- dependent. In science and technology calorie usually refers to the gram calorie In dietetics calorie may refer to the kilogram calorie. A conversion to SI units (joule, kilojoule, etc.) is useful for avoiding ambiguity.
	kilogram calorie large calorie	Cal

Jimp 10:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no benefit in including the terms "small calorie" and "large calorie". These are not needed and can be deprecated. Use of "gram calorie" and "kilogram calorie" should be with a link to a definition. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I like the last proposed version of the table above. It's still useful to mention to terms "small calorie" and "large calorie" because they're occasionally encountered, and it makes sense to include them for the sake of completeness. An equivalent in J or kJ should always be provided to any number in (k)cal. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jimp:

'The table is under the title "Specific units" by which is meant something like "units which have specific points to be made about".' Thanks for the clarification. This wasn't evident to me, since the table contains many other entries that have no special comments. Perhaps an introductory line above the table would help.

'The line "The rules for common nouns apply to the calorie" was intended to mean that they apply to both the large and the small calorie.' That's interesting because the last stable version of the table before EEng recently overhauled it said this in relation to kilogram calorie: "The regular rules for common nouns apply to the calorie. Write 100 calories not 100 Calories." No such comment was made in relation to gram calorie, so presumably it did not apply. This revision seems to materially change the status quo to say that this applies to both.

'I agree that we shouldn't be advocating using joules over gram calories or kilogram calories to avoid the ambiguity. Are we though?' The previous version that I referred to in my earlier comment said, in relation to calorie: "To avoid confusion SI units (joule, kilojoule) should be used instead." So yes, this explicitly said to use joules, not giving gram calories or kilogram calories as acceptable alternatives. The confusion is compounded by the fact that the table is not a complete list and thus does not list joule as a unit.

Additional comments regarding the revised table: please spell out "gram calorie and kilogram calorie", not "gram and kilogram calorie", to avoid confusion with "gram"; it would also be useful to clarify that "kilocal" is the abbreviation for "kilocalorie" (as distinct from "kilogram calorie"), assuming this is correct; it would also be useful to retain the explicit reference that "calorie" should not be used on its own; gram calorie and kilogram calorie should be wikilinked (to existing redirects to calorie, which details their use, not redlinks to unnecessary "definition of… articles"); the rowspan parameterss were messed up.

Group	Name	Symbol	Comment
Energy	gram calorie small calorie	cal	SI prefixes may be used with the gram calorie but not with the kilogram calorie: The term kilocalorie (abbreviated kilocal) always refers to 1,000 gram calories. Do not use kiloCal. The rules for common nouns apply to the both the gram calorie and kilogram calorie. Use lower case for either except where common nouns take a capital: Write 100 calories not 100 Calories. Do not use calorie on its own, as this is ambiguous. Whether to use gram calorie or kilogram calorie is context-dependent: In science and technology calorie usually refers to the gram calorie In dietetics calorie may refer to the kilogram calorie. A conversion to SI units (joule, kilojoule, etc.) is useful for avoiding ambiguity.
	kilogram calorie large calorie	Cal

—sroc 💬 13:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just noticed another contradiction. Calorie has been deprecated, but the table includes this example: "Write 100 calories not 100 Calories." Should this be: "Write 100 kilogram calories, not 100 kilogram Calories"? Or does the deprecation mean: "Specify gram calorie or kilogram calorie initially, then calorie alone can be used as shorthand for the same term provided the intended meaning is clear"? —sroc 💬 13:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume that, when the usage is obvious (e.g. in dietetics, the kilogram calorie is the normal unit) then "calorie" may be used for brevity. Still, an equivalent in kilojoules should always be provided, which is unambiguous. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Does providing providing a conversion in joules really help to disambiguate between gram calorie and kilogram calorie? Doesn't this rely on the reader knowing what the conversion rates are and performing the calculation each time? Actually stating the full term (at least the first time) would obviously be a better way to clarify this. —sroc 💬 22:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The gram calorie would be converted to joules, and the kilogram calorie would be converted to kilojoules, so the order of magnitude would clarify things on its own. But I agree that for disambiguation, the unit name should be given in full the first time: articles with dietetic information should state "kilocalories" on the first use, and "kcal" subsequently. The kilogram calorie is never used with prefixes, so this is unambiguous (food labels, at least in Europe, commonly use "kcal" anyway). Archon 2488 (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

But "kcal" isn't mentioned in the table at all! Should the table give the symbol for kilogram calorie as "Cal or kcal"? —sroc 💬 22:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a difference between kilocalorie (given in the table as kilocal) and kilogram calorie (stated in calorie as "equal to 1000 small calories or one kilocalorie" and given as kcal)? —sroc 💬

The kcal and Cal are equivalent by definition, so the distinction is largely academic. In the former case, the "calorie" is defined with respect to one gram of water, then multiplied by 1000. In the latter case, the "calorie" is definied with respect to one kilogram of water. This isn't relevant to the normal use of the units, and "kcal" is unambiguous (it's also the unit that people normally mean when they say "calorie"). Archon 2488 (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. In other words, "kcal" = "kilocal" = "kilogram calorie". I'm working on simplifying and clarifying this section: see User:sroc/sandbox#Special units. How does this look? —sroc 💬 23:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• A side comment: While I've spend a good deal of time here in recent months, in the past 6 weeks for so I just haven't been able to, and likely won't again for a while. I do want to say, though, that with the exception of a few limited points on which explicit, separate discussions were opened, it was only my intention to improve the presentation of the guidelines as they were, not to change them (though that wasn't always easy, since in many cases the guidelines seemed self-inconsistent). If something did change, it was inadvertent. Keep up the good work, everyone. EEng (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I was not making a case for a "definition of ..." article. I just meant there is little point in linking to gram calorie unless that article contains a definition of "gram calorie". Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Dondervogel 2:

Well, you did write 'Use of "gram calorie" and "kilogram calorie" should be with a link to a definition' with piped redlinks to definition of gram calorie and definition of kilogram calorie respectively. Redlinks encourage editors to create those missing pages.

Currently, gram calorie and kilogram calorie both redirect to calorie, which begins with this (footnotes omitted):

The name calorie is used for two units of energy.

• The small calorie or gram calorie (symbol: cal) is the approximate amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius.
• The large calorie, kilogram calorie, dietary calorie, nutritionist's calorie, nutritional calorie, Calorie (capital C) or food calorie (symbol: Cal, equiv: kcal) is approximately the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius. The large calorie is thus equal to 1000 small calories or one kilocalorie (symbol: kcal).

The article also includes sections on "Precise definitions" and "Usage". This seems to pretty well cover it, but if you feel that information is deficient, you can go ahead and edit that article. —sroc 💬 22:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The section with the definitions in it (which is indeed entitled Precise definitions) mentions neither the gram calorie nor the kilogram calorie. So linking to that article in its present form for a definition is useless. I will take a look to see if it can be improved but will not spend time on it I do not have. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal made at calorie. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Writing SI unit names

The current guidelines on pluralising unit names seem to be incomplete. I'd suggest incorporating the advice in this NIST guide, at least for metric units: thus units combined with values below 1 are considered grammatically singular (e.g. 0.25 metre, 10^-3 watt). Phrasing such as "0.1 of a metre" should also be avoided.

In addition, it should be specified that numbers with unit symbols should not be hyphenated (e.g. "100-m bridge"), and periods with unit symbols ("100 m.") should be avoided — I cannot see this in the current guidance.

It might be worthwhile to emphasise that the prefixes are always attached to the unit name (never spaced or hyphenated as in "milli gram" or "kilo-pascal"), and are uncontracted except in the case of: kilohm, megohm and hectare. The plural of "henry" is written "henries" since it's considered a regular noun for English grammatical purposes. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Or Henry's. --2 potatoe's (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The plural of hertz (hertz) might also be worth a mention if not there already. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added the invariant unit names to my proposal and put it in my sandbox with a couple of minor fixes. I didn't look closely enough: it already says not to use periods. Let me know what you think. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose pluralising English words - be they units or otherwise - in a way that does not conform with English grammar. According to your proposal, it appears to me that we are to talk about zero cakes and 0.75 dollars, but zero kilogram and 0.75 kilometre. I do not believe that this would be grammatical. Kahastok talk 22:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree in opposing this. Standard English usage would be 0.25 metres and 10^-3 watts, regardless of what NIST advocates. Wikipedia follows actual use, not official standards. —sroc 💬 23:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This is quite a thorny question, I think. The rules of English grammar are very weird with fractions: when you use vulgar fractions you'd always use the singular: 3/4 dollar, not 3/4 dollars. Likewise, "a half litre", not "a half litres"; I suspect we instinctively don't like the sound of "0.5 litre" because the numeral next to "litre" is "5" which makes us think "plural", even if it's not really logical. Since decimal fractions are just a different way of representing the same numbers it's not obvious why they have to be treated differently, and style guides aren't consistent. The number zero is a separate case of its own: I think it should probably always take the plural (obviously 0 is neither singular nor plural, but grammar is a bit illogical), however the degree Celsius (or for what it's worth, the degree Fahrenheit) is the only unit you'd commonly use with a zero (because 0 °C is just an arbitrary temperature, not the true physical zero point of temperature). There's not too much sense in talking about "zero kilometres" because if something has no length (or mass, or whatever) then units aren't really relevant: 0 km = 0 Mpc = 0 Å. To add to the complication, it's formally permissible to write the SI unit names in the singular even when the value is greater than 1, so you'll commonly encounter strange-sounding things like "the magnetic field has a strength of 2 tesla". Absolute zero is commonly referred to as both "zero kelvin" and "zero kelvins" so it's a bit of a coin-flip really. Derived units without special names, such as kJ/(mol K), are supposed to be read as invariant singulars, but this rule is commonly ignored: most people don't say "100 kilometre per hour".

All that being said, the guidelines are just NIST's interpretation of how to say and write SI units in (American) English: they're not an intrinsic part of the SI. For the purposes of Wikipedia it might be best to pick a more simple and consistent set of rules: for all metric units, with values other than ±1, use the plural form; otherwise use the singular (so you would also write "negative/minus one degree Celsius" for example). Imperial/USC units written with vulgar fractions should use the singular: "5/16 inch", not "5/16 inches" (metric units are never written with vulgar fractions, so this rule doesn't apply to them). Opinions? Archon 2488 (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have modified the proposed changes in my sandbox in line with the suggestions above. I've also added a bullet point on how to write the names of units containing powers. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say half a litre but .5 litres. Linguistically, it is easy to say that something is "half" or "quarter" of a whole ("a litre") because these are basic divisions, but it's not as easy to do this with decimals. If we said .5 litre, then would we also say .6 litre or .521 litre? We would not say five hundred and twenty-one thousandths of a litre in words, so as a corollary, the equivalent in numerals seems odd. —sroc 💬 01:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Archon, you write "Since decimal fractions are just a different way of representing the same numbers it's not obvious why they have to be treated differently". I agree, it's not obvious. However, what is obvious is that they are treated differently. It's not obvious why "I" is always capitalised whereas "he", "she", "me", etc. are not. It's not obvious why it's "himself" and "themselves" (not "hisself" and "theirselves") whereas we have "myself" and "yourself". It's not obvious why we don't spell "yacht" as "yot", "friend" as "frend", "head" as "hed", etc. Decimals and fractions may represent the same things but they are different things. When you see "3⁄4 metre" you read it as "three quarters of a litre" (just as you read "on 6 February" as "on the sixth of February") but when you see "0.75 litres" you read it as "zero point seven five litres". I suspect that it was some failure along the way to see the distinction between fractions and decimals that lead to the artificial rule that they should be treated as equivalent. Wikipedia is not bound by outside style guides (nor need it be nor even should it be). We are free to make and follow our own rules. In creating such rules it would seem that normal English usage should trump the dictates of some organisation like the US NIST. In normal English usage we don't make any special exception for metric unit names when it comes to pluralisation: they are simply treated as ordinary nouns. This is what we should follow. It is possible to combine fractions with metric units (albeit less common) just as it's possible to combine fractions with imperial/US customary units; in fact fractions and decimals can be combined with many things (not just units). You write "For the purposes of Wikipedia it might be best to pick a more simple and consistent set of rules" and I agree but the rules you suggest are more complicated and inconsistent for my liking. I suggest units be they metric, imperial, US customary or otherwise be treated as any other noun for the purpose of pluralisation and that for ±1 and fractions (but not decimals) between the noun be singular and for other numbers it be plural. Jimp 08:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I've revised my proposed changes in line with other people's suggestions. Some of the NIST guidance is still useful, even if their pluralisation advice is a bit strange, and it covers some points which the existing MOSNUM version does not — I think this should be included, at least for the sake of completeness.

Metric units aren't supposed to be written with vulgar fractions in general, and this is already covered by MOSNUM:

Unless there is sound reason to the contrary, fractional parts of metric units should be expressed as decimal fractions (5.25 mm), not vulgar fractions (51⁄4 mm). However Imperial, English, avoirdupois, and United States customary units may use either form – both (5.25 inches) and (51⁄4 inches) are acceptable, provided that there is consistency in the way that the fractions are represented.

Archon 2488 (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that, with regard to imperial, one should not write "5.25 inches" or whatever. This is contrary to how the system was designed, and how it was meant to be used. It should be "51⁄4 inches". RGloucester — ☎ 16:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Traditionally, you would be correct, but (at least in the USA) the convention of decimalising inches (and other such units) is well-established. American firearms are typically described in terms of their nominal caliber in decimal inches (.308 Winchester, etc.). For machining in USC units, it's common to subdivide inches into thousandths (or "mils"). There's no real contemporary guidance on how imperial/USC units should be used, so you'd just follow the use that was conventional in the relevant field, whether that be fractional or decimal inches. This is why MOSNUM allows both formats. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose so. It feels weird, however, to use a system meant to be used with vulgar fractions, but use decimalised fractions instead. RGloucester — ☎ 18:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with it feeling "weird" every time I take a measurement with a ruler and convert 1/4 to 0.250, but I think computers have pushed us towards doing it because of not having the 1/4 and 1/2 (let alone 3/16) characters in the standard 7-bit ASCII character set or keyboards any more, the "ugliness" of having to insert a space for the fraction when not written in a smaller font (i.e. 5 1/4) and the result still not being as "clean" as 51⁄4, etc. So, we just get used to converting to 5.25 because it's easier to type, see, and store in a database. There are a few special limited circumstances that still work better retaining values as fractions, like some financial instrument pricing (and not even there for much longer, with most markets having been decimalized), and we should retain them in quotes as well.

As far as plurals, it seems the best "sounding" rules are those that follow how one would read it aloud: 1⁄4 liter, but 0.25 liters; ¾ [of an] inch, but 0.75 inches; 1⁄2 [an] acre, but 0.5 acres. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph, which is quite biased in favour of Imperial units (which it calls "British units"), recommends the following:

"Fractions: use half, quarter, three quarters, third, fifth, eighth in preference to decimals in general copy. Use decimals when they aid comprehension or comparison, but not with imperial measurements: e.g. write 3ft 9in rather than 3.75 feet, or 6lb 8oz not 6.5lb. Do not use decimals and fractions in the same story except when necessary in financial copy. In money markets all dealings are in fractions. Write 2¼, but one-quarter per cent."Link

I tend to agree with recommending "3ft 9in" over "3.75 feet". RGloucester — ☎ 19:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Generally, yes, but this is another reason why we need to bear in mind that a style guide is not holy writ. Being too strict about the details of usage (as opposed to purely stylistic things, such as not pluralising unit symbols and needing to insert a space between value and unit) can lead to editors being recommended to write about the "Winchester 77⁄250" (or, indeed, a "6.2-mile race"). It's important to bear in mind that these rules have to cover a myriad of cases from many different disciplines.

Now that the discussion seems to have quietened down, can I assume that there are no further objections to my proposal? I'll leave another few days for comments, then incorporate my sandbox version into the MOS. Mostly, they are just stylistic advice included for the sake of completeness, so I don't imagine they could cause problems in practice. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer "mixed units are traditionally used for most measurements in the imperial and US customary systems". I'd also like an example given for weight and liquid volume, as well as for length. RGloucester — ☎ 18:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, changes made. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. RGloucester — ☎ 20:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is consensus for all of the changes that have been made. I stick by my comments above. Also see the various comments by other most other regarding the notion that units names are somehow special nouns for the purpose of pluralisation. Here is the inserted/modified text. (I've numbered the the points for reference.)

1. Only the unit of appropriate magnitude, or the unit generally used in the relevant context, should be used: thus 10 metres not 0.01 kilometres. In particular, measurements in metric units should not be given using mixed units: 1500 metres or 1.5 kilometres, as context dictates, but never 1 kilometre and 500 metres. Mixed units are traditionally used for most measurements of appropriate magnitude in imperial and US customary units: 10 feet 5 inches, 3 pounds 2 ounces, 1 pint 8 fluid ounces.
2. The SI prefixes centi-, deci-, deca-, and hecto- are rarely used, and thus should be avoided, in most contexts: exceptions include the centimetre, the decibel, the hectolitre, the hectare and the hectopascal. Thus: 100 metres, not 1 hectometre.
3. Measurements in metric units consisting of values other than ±1 should use the plural form of the unit name; otherwise the singular form is used. Thus: negative one degree Celsius, 10^-3 watts and 0.25 metres, not 10^-3 watt, 0.25 metre or 0.25 of a metre. In the case of imperial or US customary units with values in vulgar fractions less than 1, the singular form is used. Thus: 5⁄16 inch, not 5⁄16 inches or 5⁄16 of an inch.
4. Unit names are typically considered to be regular nouns for the purposes of English grammar. Thus their plurals are most commonly formed by appending an s: 10 metres. The exceptions are the henry: 10 henries, not 10 henrys, as well as the hertz, the lux, and the siemens: these are invariant, so their plural forms are always the same as their singular forms: 10 hertz, 10 lux, 10 siemens.
5. Unit prefixes are considered to be part of the unit name, and should never be separated by spaces or hyphens, thus: 25 kilopascals, never 25 kilo pascals or 25 kilo-pascals.
6. Unit prefixes should be written without contraction; the exceptions are the kilohm, the megohm, and the hectare (not kiloohm, megaohm, or hectoare).
7. The "metre-newton" as a unit of energy is properly and commonly called the joule in the SI: thus 10 joules, not 10 metre-newtons.
8. When unit symbols are combined by division, use a slash ... Common exceptions in imperial and US customary units include mph for the mile per hour and psi for pounds per square inch; metric unit symbols should always be written according to SI convention, thus g/m² not gsm.

Most of this seems okay; however, there are a couple of problems. Here are the main ones.

• I wonder whether some of this is fixing a problem which doesn't exist. Most of the advice is sensible but it seem obvious enough not to need mentioning.
• "Avoid this" and "only use that" seems a bit strict, exceptions do exist.
• It looks like we're proposing one set of special rules for the names of metric units and another set for the names of imperial/US units which differ from how ordinary nouns are to be treated. Unit names are just nouns and should be treated as such.

Here are a few more detailed comments.

1. Whilst generally, yes, we'd use the unit of appropriate magnitude exceptions may exist (e.g. if elsewhere in a paragraph you're using hectares for the size of parks but one or two of them are larger than 100 ha, you wouldn't switch to square kilometres). Isn't this just common sense though? Also I don't recall seeing the likes of "1 metre 45 centimetres" on WP. So need we advise against this?
2. This isn't really a big problem. These are rarely used out there, it's true, and they're therefore rarely used in here. I'm just not sure that we need to mention this but if we do we needn't be as strict as to say "avoid". They are used, albeit rarely, since there are some occasions where they are appropriate. So they should be used where appropriate. Do we need to mention that appropriate units should be used?
3. We follow the rules of English when it comes to pluralisation. These rules do not distinguish between metric units, imperial units, US customary units, other units or other things in general. This has nothing to do with what system of measurement you're using. Forget talk about metric vs imperial/US, we need only state that 1, −1 and fractions (but not decimals) between are singular and anything else is plural.
4. The phrasing is a bit confusing here. It's not clear whether you mean that the henry, hertz, lux and siemens are exceptions to the rule of forming a plural by adding an "s" or to being typically considered to be regular nouns for the purposes of English grammar. Units names are nouns. It's common for an word ending in "y" to be pluralised by turning the "y" into an "i" and adding "es" (e.g. "party"→"parties", "story"→"stories", "lorry"→"lorries", etc.) and it's not that uncommon for a plural to have the same form as it's singular (e.g. "fish", "sheep", "deer", etc.).
5. I'm not sure that we need to mention every possible misspelling.
6. Again, you might find that it's common knowledge that unit prefixes are considered to be part of the unit name (that's what a prefix is). Do we need to spell this out? I don't recall seeing this mistake.
7. Again, I haven't seen a joule being called a "metre-newton". Do we need to mention this?
8. This clearer than what was there before.

So, like I said, it's mostly fine though a bit over-the-top in parts and seems to imply that unit names are somehow special noun that defy the rules of grammar. Jimp 15:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Like I say, most of this is included for the sake of completeness and unambiguity. The advice on what not to write covers things that are certainly wrong; it's not about which units to use in which context, which is a more subtle question.

1. This is why I added the phrasing "or the unit generally used in the relevant context". If you're talking about aircraft flight levels, you'll give numbers in feet and metres, even though the numbers are large, without switching to miles and kilometres. Sometimes people who apparently don't understand how to use the metric system properly will say things like "1 metre 45 centimetres"; it's useful to clarify that this is incorrect usage.
2. It says "should be avoided in most contexts", which I think is fair. You should switch directly from metres to kilometres without using decametres or hectometres. Nobody talks about centigrams. Perhaps this could be changed to "... are rarely used in most contexts" to remove the "avoid" phrasing, if you think it's too strong.
3. Yes, I think your phrasing is clearer. My original phrasing was intended to emphasise that only imperial/USC units should be written with vulgar fractions, but this could probably be clarified.
4. I should clarify that I abandoned the position that unit names are in any way "special nouns" for the purposes of pluralisation (my added text says they are "regular nouns"). The henry deserves special mention because people can sometimes get confused by unit names derived from proper nouns: the unit is not considered a proper noun. It's useful to name the three SI units with invariant names.
5. If by "misspelling" you mean "kiloohm" etc., then those are the only three cases where the unit name should be written with a contracted prefix. It's an exclusive list.
6. Maybe this is spelling things out in too much detail.
7. The phrasing of this in the original was a bit odd: saying that for torque units have force unit first and energy is length-first, is relevant advice only for imperial/USC. The SI doesn't have this problem because the energy unit has another name. I could rephrase it so that it's clear it applies only to foot-pounds and pound-feet.

Archon 2488 (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Noon vs. 12 pm

I feel that "noon," "midnight," "12 pm," and "12 am," should be used interchangeably, as it looks out of place in a table, for example:
3:30 pm
6:00 pm
Noon
8:00 pm
10:00 am
etc.
Should the Manual allow this? Shorthand date formats are allowed, and I have seen several templates contain 12 pm, particularly on sports-related pages with tables concerning game/match results. Would this also fall under WP:IAR? Ben^Yes? 00:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What does it mean to say that they should be used interchangeably? There's an ambiguity here that can only really be avoided by using the 24-hour clock, but the existing guidance on this is vague. I have asked for clarification on this point in a separate section on this page. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

By "interchangeably," I mean that both "noon" and "12 pm" could be used. Ben^Yes? 00:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, noon and midnight are not interchangeable, nor are 12 pm and 12 am, as these refer to different times of day. The guidance at MOS:TIME ("Use noon and midnight rather than 12 pm and 12 am; whether midnight refers to the start or the end of a date will need to be specified unless it is clear from the context") is presumably because some people confuse 12 pm (i.e., noon) and 12 am (i.e., midnight). No such issue arises when using 24-hour time. —sroc 💬 01:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Problem is that there's no universally-agreed convention that they mean the same thing. "am/pm" is fundamentally ambiguous when it comes to the hour 12; you can never be sure, without contextual information, whether "12 pm" means noon or midnight. There's another ambiguity: does "midnight Saturday" mean midnight at the end of Saturday, or at the beginning? With the 24-hour clock it's all completely unambiguous: 12:00 is always noon, Saturday 00:00 is the beginning of Saturday and Saturday 24:00 is the end of Saturday. Which is why I think the 24-hour clock is generally preferable. Archon 2488 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I know noon and midnight aren't interchangeable, but noon is the same thing as 12 pm, as well as 1200. Personally, I do prefer the 24-hour time format, but I'm saying that 12 pm should be allowed as an equivalent alternative to Noon, so that if there is a list of times in a table, for example, it doesn't stand out, or as otherwise appropriate within the context. Because the issue of people confusing 12 am against 12 pm seems to be apparent, if it were allowed, there could be an endnote stating that 12 pm/12 am should only be used where brevity is required, in the case of tables, for example, otherwise, noon should be used. This is seen in the date formats rules. Ben^Yes? 01:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

'Problem is that there's no universally-agreed convention that they mean the same thing. "am/pm" is fundamentally ambiguous when it comes to the hour 12; you can never be sure, without contextual information, whether "12 pm" means noon or midnight.' Other than by mistake, who uses "12 pm" to mean "midnight" or "12 am" to mean "noon"? Are there any cultures that do this? I've never heard of such a convention. —sroc 💬 04:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I personally find it confusing, probably because I'm trying to apply too much logic to it. Quoting from 12-hour clock: "a.m. (from the Latin ante meridiem, meaning 'before midday') and p.m. (post meridiem, 'after midday')". Noon and midnight are neither before nor after midday. Noon is midday and midnight is the opposite. There's a whole section at 12-hour clock#Confusion at noon and midnight which goes on in the same vein. SchreiberBike talk 05:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was not aware that Japanese legal convention and former advice from the US Government Printing Office endorsed "12 am" for noon and "12 pm" for midnight, but there you go. These are, of course, not strictly relevant to current practice in the English language, but if consensus is that these "12 am" and "12 pm" are to be avoided because of the potential for confusion, then so be it.

By the way, I don't think the idea of making exceptions for confined spaces (as with the date format table) is a good idea in general when there is not a significant problem, otherwise it might be perceived as instruction creep. This is also a different situation because YYYY-MM-DD date formats are clear, albeit uncommonly used in English, so there is no harm in using them in certain contexts without clarification; conversely, "12 am" and "12 pm" apparently are ambiguous (at least to some people) so having a footnote in MOS is not going to clarify what these terms mean for someone encountering them in an article (unless you also include a footnote in the tables explaining what these times mean—in which case it's too much effort to avoid simply using unambiguous terms such as "midnight" or "noon" in the first place). —sroc 💬 08:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that we should stick to disallowing "12 am" and "12 pm". There may be no convention for "12 pm" to mean "midnight" or "12 am" to mean "noon", some follow the opposite convention but it's not universally-agreed-upon. Logic, though, would have "12 am" and "12 pm" both mean "midnight" (at the start and the end of the day respectively, i.e. "12:00 am" ≡ "00:00" and "12:00 pm" ≡ "24:00") since midnight is as much before noon as it is after (noon is neither before nor after itself). The best convention, in my opinion, would be this (along with having the usual stuff like midday's being called "12 noon" and using "12 midnight" for midnight without specifying the day (or between the days)). It follows the logical implication of what "am" and "pm" stand for and solves the midnight problem too but, of course, we couldn't use it here since it's not universally accepted either (I just made it up). Without universal agreement on what "12 pm" and "12 am" are supposed to mean, though, it's best we avoid them. Jimp 07:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that there is no convention. As long as I can remember, in the U.S. anyway, 12 p.m. has been noon and 12 a.m. has been midnight. As a child, I might have been confused about it for a while, but it was one of those things you just had to memorize, like which way is left. In the current computer-literate world, it's even more clearly understood, since any software that (unfortunately) uses an AM/PM format for display must use this convention to get it right. Can someone point to a current source where the convention is inverted?

Having said that, I think "noon" or "midnight" are more clear, though the latter probably should follow the AP style of including the dates being straddled. But back to what I think the original poster's point was – in a table that uses a.m./p.m. times, I think it "looks better" to use "12 p.m." than "noon". I just don't know if it's worth trading looks for possible ambiguity, however slight I may think that possibility is. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A US convention is not a universal convention (although I have seen the convention in use here too). As for the table/list above we could go for this.

 3:30 pm

 6:00 pm

12:00 noon

 8:00 pm

10:00 am

Jimp 09:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable proposal. Nonetheless, whenever you use the 12-hour clock, there's always more information for the reader to parse before they can be sure what is going on (be it contextual information or even the symbols "am" and "pm" after the time). The ambiguity arises because noon/midnight are neither in the am nor the pm period, so sometime you'll come across things like 11:59 pm to avoid the confusion. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

While "12 noon" looks OK above, and doesn't result in too much extra width, "12 midnight" is somewhat ugly, either by being too wide or wrapping. How about suggesting that times be shown in 24-hour format (HH:mm, with leading zero) unless 12-hour is necessary for some reason? This has the added advantage of not requiring a hidden value to sort correctly. While people may have been resistant to this format a couple generations ago, many countries now routinely use 24-hour format in travel and broadcast information and, while people may not use it routinely when speaking, I think a majority of readers can deal with it when needed. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Many people in many countries have not adjusted to 24-hour times, so there's no need to foist it on editors as a blanket requirement. The choice between 12- and 24-hour times may be determined by editors based on, for example, the format commonly used in the country that is the primary subject of the article. For example, the US broadly uses 12-hour time and there may be many readers are not as familiar with 24-hour times or would have to do mental arithmetic every time, particularly for articles on a US subject. We shouldn't force all editors to use 24-hour times just because 12-hour times might look ugly in some cases. —sroc 💬 22:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, how many adults don't understand the 24-hour clock? It disturbs me somewhat to think that there are people who've been living on Earth for several decades who haven't bothered to learn a basic numeracy skill. There are limits to how much we should condescend to readers. Nonetheless, in the case of (say) US-related articles, if it's the time format predominantly used in the country, then it should be permissible for it to be used in articles per the usual Wikipedia rules for this sort of thing. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• How about waiting until this issue has come up as an actual problem among actual editors in an actual article, and see if how they work it out? And then, if it comes up in another article, and another, and another, then -- in light of all that experience -- we might think about whether MOS' usefulness will be enhanced by adding something on this, instead of being WP:CREEP-bloated in advance of any indicated need. EEng (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

An older edition of the Chicago Manual of Style indicated 12 AM was noon and 12 PM was midnight, although the current 16th edition (p.478) states "Except in the 24 hour system numbers should never be used to express noon or midnight (except, informally, in an expression like twelve o'clock at night)." [Cross reference omitted.] Chicago justifies this with the same ambiguity concerns expressed in this thread. I have seen articles about radio programs where I tried to fix the ambiguity, but had to give up because I just couldn't figure out whether noon or midnight was intended. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

is it me, or have you all gone a little mad? Instead of discussing the hour, think of it in minutes. 11:58am, 11:59am, 12:00, 12:01pm, 12:02pm

The meridian IS 12:00 noon, the middle of the day.

12:00 is neither AM nor PM, one is the middle of the day, one the change from this day to the next. Technically neither of them exists - is midnight part of today, tomorrow or yesterday?. To distinguish which one we mean, people use the am/pm designator for the minutes in the hour. In the afternoon the hour 12 is pm, and at night the 12 hour is am.

We used to say "12 midnight" and "12 noon", which worked quite well. Perhaps we just need to teach children better. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly justifiable to allow "12pm" or "12:00pm" because this is how the time is written in the real world. Perhaps its a corruption of the technological age dividing all times into the binary "AM" or "PM. Perhaps there is a logical argument that noon is a moment that lasts less than a minute, less than a second even (e.g., 11:59:58am → 11:59:59am → noon moment → 12:00:00pm → 12:00:01pm) to justify it. —sroc 💬 23:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Article should be flagged as conflicting

I propose the article be marked with Template:Contradict-other-multiple as such:

Due to direct conflict with these articles, especially in the portion WP:NUMERAL and onward. Proposal:

1. The articles listed should be updated to conform with this page or have sections or some indication/link of exception when being used internally on Wikipedia
2. This MoS page be updated to conform to the writing styles described within the listed articles, and all pages be maintained uniformly as a group

Particular instances of direct contradiction are abundant, so I won't list them all here. Thoughts? Penitence (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not tag MOS as contradicting articles. MOS is not an article; it is a project page. Specifically, it is our Manual of Style, and we can adopt whatever style we choose, regardless of whether it is reflected in individual encyclopedic articles. Nonetheless, if you have any suggestions on how to improve either MOS or individual articles, feel free to propose them. —sroc 💬 03:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I second sroc above. This is not an article (I believe the contradict template is intended to be used only in the article namespace, in any case); it is a set of instructions and recommendations addressed to Wikipedia editors. It's not intended to be a neutral overview of the topics it addresses, but rather a guide to writing articles in an appropriate style. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The articles describe how things are done out there. The MOS prescribes how things are to be done in here. They may say different things but this cannot be called a contradiction since they're talking about different things. Jimp 07:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Date ranges

Are date ranges in the form Mmmm dd – Mmmm dd, YYYY (January 27 – February 3, 1986 or Jan 27 – Feb 3, 1986) permissible under WP:DATERANGE or other WP:DATE? If not, why not? If permissible, should this form be added to WP:DATERANGE?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It already does:

The Ghent Incursion (March 1822 – January 1, 1823) was ended by the New Year's Treaty.

—sroc 💬 11:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't thinking. That was obviously after they slashed the number of days in March. (What an odd mix of date formats, though.) —sroc 💬 11:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I think the examples you provided are perfectly acceptable. It's a shame that the examples given in WP:DATERANGE ("They travelled June 3 – August 18 of that year;  They travelled 3 June – 18 August") do not include actual years. I don't think we necessarily need additional examples (WP:CREEP), but perhaps we could revise these examples (They travelled June 3 – August 18, 2001;  They travelled 3 June – 18 August 2001) for the sake of clarity? —sroc 💬 11:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the answer should be yes, and we should probably put them in there explicitly. People do point to the absence of an explicit statement about a type of date range as evidence that it is not permitted.

There needs to be a way to express "between months in the same year", just as there already is a section called "between months in different years". And since not having it in there can be a problem leading to contention, it should be in there, despite WP:CREEP.

I'm thinking that 12 March – 14 April 1986 would also be acceptable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done The "between months in the same year" case is already there, titled "between days in different months", and I have updated it to include years as suggested above. —sroc 💬 22:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

UK horses' heights

At the moment MOSNUM says that horses and other equines are measured in hands. This may be true, but it doesn't seem to be the whole truth.

Equine World UK says:

The term used for height measurement of a horse is "hands high" or "hh". Often the height is just over a number of hands eg 16 hands and 2 inches and the height is therefore referred to as 16.2 hh. With Europeanisation horses are also now being measured in centimetres, particularly small ponies. See conversion table for horse's height in hh and cm. [11]

The Joint Measurement Board website doesn't appear to mention hands but its references to measurements seem to be centimetres first.

7. The animal must be positioned for measurement with the front legs parallel and perpendicular; the toes of the front feet should be in line, allowing not more than 1.5 cm (½ in) difference. Both hind- feet must be taking weight and as near perpendicular as possible; the toes of the hind feet should be not more than 15 cm (6 in) out of line with each other.

8. The animal’s head must be in its natural position in relation to its neck, positioned so that the eye is neither more than 8 cm (3in) below, nor more than 8 cm (3 in) above the highest point of the withers.

British Showjumping has this question and answer on its website:

If a pony (148cms or smaller) has been registered as a horse can it be registered back as a pony?

Yes, however the request must be sent to the British Showjumping office in writing and must be accompanied by a valid up to date JMB Height Certificate stating that the animal is 148cms or below.

On the other hand, Blue Cross uses hands. Even when it appears to use kilograms for their weights (but they work it out with a weight tape in inches that works out an approximate weight in pounds that is divided by 2.2 to give you kilograms!) see [12]

Scottish Horse had this headline: Measuring Horses and Ponies - ongoing controversies [13]

Here were some problems:

• ...it is the inescapable fact that there is no rigid anatomical connection between the withers and the feet that touch the ground. *...simply allowing an excited pony to stand and relaxed can, in my experience, cause the height to drop by as much as 6cm. *...Measurements are taken without shoes and simply trimming the heels and leaving the toes long can reduce height by more than cm. (sic)
• Lowering the head to the ground can significantly reduce the height at the withers – by nearly 2cm – whereas raising the head can increase height by over 2cm.

Then there was this passage:

I distinctly remember, in the line of ponies waiting to be measured at Avenches, Switzerland in 2008, a grey horse that looked at least 15.2hh. Fearful of creating an international incident I anxiously awaited its arrival at my station. It settled into the stable and when I put the stick onto its withers the horizontal bar read over 156cm. But the withers instantly started to shrink under the bar – as if contact with the stick had triggered a reflex – and kept sinking until, within a couple of minutes, the pony measured 151.5cm. Many of the ponies at this year’s championships showed similar reactions, no doubt the results of months of training at home. Why go to all that effort? Putting it bluntly, a European team pony might be worth several hundred thousand Euros, whereas a pony that won’t measure 151cm is practically worthless.

There is no way that I can be dogmatic about ponies and horses. However, it would seem that "Hands for horses and other equines" is perhaps an over-simplification. Michael Glass (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

In whatever units the horse may be measured, I think we can all agree that it is dead. Please stop flogging it. Kahastok talk 14:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Like Montanabw^(talk) 19:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, but where's your evidence to justify the present policy? Michael Glass (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The whole section on UK units is more than a bit arbitrary and overly simplistic, but it's the product of an uneasy political compromise between editors. Until our country actually does something to sort out the bizarre non-system of units in use here, the situation will not change. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, in the particular case of units for measurement of horses in the UK there was no compromise or indeed discussion; the present text was added by Montanabw with this edit. Since what it says seems to be at variance with the usage of bodies such as the Joint Measurement Board and the National Pony Society], some discussion is probably called for. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There are now four discussions on UK-related units on this page, three of them started by the same editor. I think they all ought to be combined.

I don't accept your link as relevant because you're inferring a policy from individual instances of usage. All of Michael's "evidence" is in the same category. We have no reason to assume that all or any other documents use the same units as the ones you have found. Demonstrate a policy and that might make a difference, though I would note that it would be surprising if more than a small minority of horses actually took part in competition. I note that there is no actual proposal here at all, and that in a previous discussion (still on this page) the proposal was to add a qualification ("most") that achieved nothing but to make an already little-used rule harder to follow.

This is all standard stuff and Michael has heard all of it before, because he has opened similar sections here on dozens of occasions. Kahastok talk 19:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• I did add the hands material here, believing in good faith that it reflected the consensus of WikiProject Equine. This issue was debated quite extensively at WikiProject Equine, with the UK-resident editors all in agreement with the USA editors on this matter: horses are generally (though not exclusively) measures in hands in most (though not all) of the English-speaking world, including the UK. We have gone on to do a lot of work on the convert height template so that it displays in hands, inches and centimeters, and editors may choose which default to go first; those editors who wish to begin with metric measurements and then have the conversion work in that direction can do so on the articles where they are doing most of the work and/or have a clear consensus on the matter. This was a situation where we seem to have reached a workable solution everyone can live with. But there were a lot of strong feelings on all sides before we got there and I believe we are all rather weary of it now and yes, WP:STICK is my feeling as well. JLAN's comment above about pony measurements outlines a couple of situations, 1) some ponies, especially the smaller ones, are often measured in inches or cm than hands, (also true of donkeys) and 2) the FEI uses centimeters for most of their height regulations, due to the international nature of this organization. I don't think it will benefit the wiki to reopen this whole situation again, though if we want to refine the instructions here to reflect the occasional exceptions (i.e. some ponies and donkeys if their governing organizations so state and if editors reach consensus on the matter, basically) Montanabw^(talk) 19:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The issue with spelling all of this out ad nauseam is that it threatens to produce instruction creep. As I said before, why do we bother to tell WP editors how to talk about bottled milk in one country? This isn't a dairy. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you Archon, but I am also open to a spirit of compromise if it seems helpful. Most of these types of disputes usually wind up being decided on an article by article basis in the long run, anyway. Montanabw^(talk) 20:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If usage is somewhat divided and these questions are usually decided on an article by article basis, why not qualify the general statement with many or most? Michael Glass (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding words like "many" or "most" doesn't change the substance of the statement, so there is little point. It introduces a degree of vagueness which isn't helpful; if you want to provide more detailed information on usage in different contexts, that would be far better. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose that both the milk-bottles and the horse heights be removed from the guideline, mostly for the good reasons such as WP:CREEP given above, also because the former is unlikely to be used outside Milk bottling in the United Kingdom, the latter because it does not accurately reflect the actual practice of British institutions concerned with horse measurement (unless of course Kahastok can cite a policy to the effect that it does?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm of mixed feelings; I'm no fan of WP:CREEP, but OTOH the chart seems to have many other exceptions, troy ounces, carats, (and karats), knots, etc... My sense is that one reason to keep it is to avoid future fights like the one we had about four or five years ago where someone (not anyone involved in this discussion) wanted to eliminate use of hands altogether and replace every article with SI units, citing, if I recall, this page of guidelines. Montanabw^(talk) 23:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Groan, oh no, not again. Suggest the guideline stays and the WP:STICK is dropped. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The milk bottle thing is pretty much a waste of space, and it strikes me as boring editors with trivia. Even if the arch-demon Michael Glass were to get his wicked way and banish the milk exception from MOSNUM, I doubt it would make a difference to a single article. If the need arose, you would describe the milk bottle in terms of pints or litres, depending on whether it was an imperial or metric bottle. That's common sense, it already falls under the rule to give nominal/defined quantities in the original units first, and does not need a separate rule.

Regarding the hands, if it's the normal notation used to express horse heights in the English-speaking world, why is it positioned so that it seems to apply exclusively to the UK, and not even mentioned in the context of other Anglophone countries? That's a bit odd. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Didn't know it was positioned only as a UK measurement; it's also the default in the USA and Australia. Montanabw^(talk) 18:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Please lend a hand

Since you horsey people have dropped in to visit, could you clarify something while you're here? At WP:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Specific_units it says "Hand... A dot followed by additional inches specifies intermediate heights." Can someone clarify that, maybe with an example (in addition to doing whatever needed, if anything, to incorporate the withering discussion here above)? EEng (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a peek, may need rewording. See Hand (measurement).

What it means is that you have notation such as "16.1 hh", meaning a height of 16 hands and 1 inch (or 16.25 hands in decimal notation). It's not a decimal point, which is very confusing. My own feelings on the recommendation to use hands are somewhat mixed: I generally support having as the primary quantity the unit that is most used in the real world, even if it's otherwise quite unfamiliar (I'm not so persuaded by the "this might disadvantage our readers" argument, because that is why we provide conversions), but on the other "hand", it seems to me that Wikipedia should generally prefer SI units for most things, because they're the "gold standard" of international measurement.

Most people who aren't horse types would think about horses' heights in cm or inches, so conversions are provided to those units. This seems like a reasonable compromise. I don't think the hand notation should be primary in articles about (say) horse biology, but should be OK for racing horses etc. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Horse heights would never be stated as "16.25" hands under any set of circumstances - the period is a radix point not a decimal point. If someone was wanting to explain to non-horse poeple they might say "16.1 hands of 65 inches" or if a horse was a half-inch between hand measurements, it might be 16.1-1/2 hands. Hands is used as a measurement in both sport and even in some general science/biology articles in English-language works, with the caveat that in certain types of studies, yes, centimeters might be used. But hands is the general default. We've been over and over this at least five times since I've been on wiki, in various contexts, and like other oddball measurements, such as the nautical mile, there are IAR exceptions all over the place, as below. WikiProject Equine has hashed this out pretty thoroughly, as noted above, mostly in our desire that whichever unit is preferred, that convert templates are used so that everyone gets it. We have been quite meticulous to be sure to use {{hands}} and its relatives to convert any hands measurements to both inches and centimeters, so all can understand. Montanabw^(talk) 23:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I know that "16.25 hands" is nonstandard, but if you're not very accustomed to the non-decimal arithmetic of imperial units, it's a bit more intuitive. Likewise with other imperial units: "16.25 miles" would more traditionally be rendered as "16 mi 440 yd" or "16 miles 2 furlongs", but most people understand the decimal notation much more readily, especially if they're more used to working with metric units. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

But completely incorrect and not to ever be used! For example, when surfing Craigslist for horses, a lot of people who try to sell a horse that is, say, 15.2 hands - i.e halfway between 15 and 16 hands - will advertise it in a decimal as "15.5 hands" which will get them labeled as a) a total idiot who knows nothing about horses, or b) a slimeball trying to pass off a 15.2 hand (62 inch) horse as one that is 16.1 hands (66 inches). Of course, these same people usually have ads that read something like "well-bread mare with gud confirmashun, 15.5 hands, we havnt riden her in 10 yrs but she likes to eat carrots and we kin ketch her 2x yr to trim her feets." So, do with that as you will (LOL) Montanabw^(talk) 03:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. For the record, I'm not interested in the argument about whether or where hand should be recommended/required, just making the table clear in its explanation of what the unit is. And also for the record, I don't know why I didn't just look in the article linked from the table. BTW, yes the use of the "point" is unfortunate, but then I've always thought that the American colon for time-of-day (3:05pm) makes much more sense than the more international 3.05pm, for the same reason. But then no one seems to have seriously suggested decimalizing time for some reason, so maybe time measurement has some kind of reform immunity. EEng (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

American baseball statistics use a similar faux decimal notation for innings pitched. Innings pitched are measured in thirds, since there are three outs per inning (per half-inning, really, but let's not get into that), so a pitcher who pitches seven full innings and gets one out in the eighth inning will be shown as having pitched "7 1/3" or "7.1" innings, depending on the style guide of the publication in question. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that 3.15 pm is a more international notation for times... everywhere I know of in the English-speaking world would use a colon, and the international date-time standard ISO 8601 mandates the use of the colon for hour-minute separation in times. Also, most parts of the world would prefer 24-hour time notation (most languages don't even have an equivalent of am/pm). So I'd say 15:15 would be the most international way of writing that time.

Decimal time has been proposed occasionally throughout history (most famously during the French revolution) but it never really caught on. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The same happens for balls in an over in cricket. There are six balls to an over, so "11.5 overs" means 11 full overs and 5 balls. Kahastok talk 20:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The French Revolution reference is particularly apt since it provides so many striking precedents for what we see at Talk_MOS -- calls for heads to be chopped off and so on.

It turns out the Tower of London is open "Tuesday - Saturday 09:00 - 16:30" but "The last Yeoman Warder tour starts at 14.30" so the jury seems still to be out even in that most English patch of the English-speaking world. Meanwhile the first weekday Bakerloo train leaves Elephant & Castle at "0537", so go figure.

Jonesey and Kahastok, please add all the baseball and cricket units to the table, working in Gunter's chain if you can.
EEng (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Great examples! Montanabw^(talk) 23:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Archon 2488: British-influenced West African nations seems to commonly use the 12-hour time with a point separator (e.g. "11.15pm"): GBC TV schedule (Ghana), GRTS schedule (The Gambia). French-influenced countries tend to use a 24-hour format with an 'h' (or 'H') as a separator (e.g. "23h15"): RTI (Côte d'Ivoire). In both cases, the part after the separator is in minutes, not decimal hours, as expected. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of the French "h" convention. I think the use of the period to separate hours and minutes is an older British notation, but you don't see so much of it any more in the UK (obviously, real-life usage isn't going to be so consistent, which is why I pointed to the ISO standard as a meaningful guide to international convention). Computers, for example, almost invariably use the colon. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@ EEng

• Unfortunately we use that as a standard time notation for bus/train timetables in the UK. Bus, Firstbus, whole of UK (this one is England), Bus, Citylink, Scotland, Train, Translink, Northern Ireland.
• I have mailed the HRP webmaster to change/explain the use of the non-standard "15.30"

The ones you chose were probably 50% of the incorrect usage.

@ all
As a copyditor working on a horse article for GOCE, I would use this process:

• Is it about horses in general?

Yes, use MoS - refer to biology related horse projects for guidance on standard practices for height.

No, it's about olympic horse riding competition/steeplechasing/equine care - MoS & olympics projects discussions on horse measurement/use MoS & sports projects (horse racing) discussions/use MoS & horse riding/rearing projects for height.

As an aside, Londoners do NOT speak English ... "innit", "yeah man" and "call me a cab" are rarely used outside the "Big Smoke", where the terms "it is", "ok/sure/why not/yes/yup", and "call me a taxi" are more regularly used. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, Chaosdruid, how about consulting WikiProject Equine for guidance? (smile) Hands is the default for measuring horse height across all wikipedia horse articles - biology, sport, or otherwise - and is standard in the English language unless there is some very compelling reason to measure height in some other fashion, such as, e.g. Miniature horse or something where there is a clear choice made to deviate from that standard. Montanabw^(talk) 18:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC) (interesting about London - "init" is also slang in a lot of northwestern US Native American communities too!)

It isn't slang. It is dialect. There is no reason to denigrate the diversity of our language. RGloucester — ☎ 19:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on UTC

Hello there! I'm having a little discussion on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) with an FAC of mine. Currently, most articles in the tropical cyclone Wikiproject use UTC in this basic format: 1200 UTC. It is how most tropical cyclone warning agencies do it, and as a result, most articles, including most featured articles, in the project use it. Another user is having questions whether we need the colon or not. I believe that it is appropriate to use it without the colon, given its widespread usage, both on and off wiki. Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, see 1933 Atlantic hurricane season, Hurricane Eloise, Timeline of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Cyclone Orson, Cyclone Rewa, Cyclone Elita, and Typhoon Gay (1989), all featured articles that use UTC without the colon (like 1200 UTC, not 12:00 UTC). I personally think WP:IAR applies, as it's more important to be consistent (both with ourselves on WP as well as with official agencies, such as NHC, CPHC, NASA, BOM, and Meteo-France. The FAC that this came up on was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Joy/archive1. I'd also like to note that it applies to Zulu time (abbreviated as Z), which is used by the US military and is abbreviated as 0000z. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I am that user who is trying to enforce the part of the MOS that says: "Context determines whether the 12- or 24-hour clock is used; in both, colons separate hours, minutes and seconds (e.g. 1:38:09 pm or 13:38:09)." I dont think that IAR nor that there is a common sense exception here since the fix is so easy to apply to all of the articles (a simple search and replace using an automated program 24 times should suffice). Also i dont believe that just because some random agencies do not use the colon in some of their products that we should ignore our own style guidelines in this case.Jason Rees (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to be a broken record, but I don't think it's helpful for editors to be "enforcers" of MOS. MOS is a guideline for what usually works well and a way to reduce wasteful argument and reinvention of the wheel. But -- and here's the broken record again -- the test is what best serves the reader's understanding, not how closely we can hew to a mindless consistency. EEng (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's why I welcome some outside opinions, as I think I laid out a decent rationale for a common sense exception. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

On principle, I agree with Jason Rees. Our Manual of Style, including MOS:TIME, applies regardless of the style used by others. I would prefer consistency within Wikipedia over a different style in one Wikiproject (consistent with outside use) that is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. To paraphrase Hurricanehink, it is more important to be consistent with ourselves than with others. —sroc 💬 03:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth sroc, we're not the only one who uses UTC this way. Tornadoes of 2009 uses it without the colon, as does December 2000 nor'easter, so it's other weather articles than just hurricanes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This then leads to issues where you have an article, say, on a plane that crashed in bad weather: articles on aviation would use one format while articles on tornados use another, resulting in conflict when discussing the tornado that caused the plane crash. —sroc 💬 04:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Consistency (such as among various articles) is not its own reward; instead the question, as always, should be "What best serves the reader's understanding?" By the reader we mean the nonspecialist, non-stormchasing reader, not H-hink's "we". And that general reader will find the 4-digits-run-together format odd. The only scenario in which I could see adopting this format for a particular article would be one in which, for example, a large amount of external material (quotations, images) also use it, so that -- maybe -- adopting that format for the text would make for smoother reading. Otherwise, no. EEng (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure I agree. There's never been any problems or complaints using UTC as it is, and surely MOS should reflect what we actually do. Furthermore, I think it might be somewhat helpful having UTC time look different from normal time, to indicate it's not a typical time zone, that it's converted. For hurricanes, for example, one might cross the international date line and thus change a day in local time, so it's useful using UTC to indicate a consistent timing, thus a slightly different format is useful. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong that no one's complained about HHMM -- you're hearing those complaints here and now. And no, MOS' purpose isn't passive documentation of "what we actually do", but rather to give guidance on good ways of doing things (which may, or may not, be the same thing). No normal reader will understand that HHMM signals a UTC time; the way to signal that is to write "01:45 UTC". Your example of crossing the date line is an argument only for expressing time in UTC, which no one is disputing. EEng (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with EEng. It is not for MOS to reflect what Wikipedia already does (warts and all) but to reflect what we should do that best serves the reader. It aids the reader to use a format that is readily understandable and commonplace (e.g., HH:MM), not a format that is invented and used by some technical organisations (e.g., HHMM) that layperson readers are less likely to be familiar with. UTC is a time zone (or at least it acts as one as far as the non-expert reader is concerned) and it does not serve the reader to format times in UTC differently from times in other time zones. —sroc 💬 23:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I love you, sroc. Did I ever tell you that? EEng (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• I favor making things within Wikipedia as consistent as possible. The HH:MM format is well known as a format for time and any other format requires an adjustment for the reader. If I were writing for the weather agencies, I'd use their style, but for a general audience, I'd follow the standard used through the rest of Wikipedia. SchreiberBike talk 01:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Though we are in agreement that HHMM isn't appropriate, I repeat that I don't agree that WP should be "as consistent as possible", because consistency is not a goal, or virtue, in and of itself. It's a general principle which, usually, aids the reader's understanding, all else being equal. But if the reader's understanding is best served by being inconsistent in some cases, then that's what we should do. EEng (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that consistency is a goal which can be overridden by other goals, such as intelligibility and fidelity to real-life use. But in this case, as in most others, intelligibility is best served by using standard, clear and rational formats to communicate information. It makes sense to stick with the ISO colon notation, and we gain nothing by removing the colon other than making times harder to read. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're repeating back to me, who agree with you, exactly what I said. EEng (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Revisit: the use of "×" and "x" for indicating "by" in arrays and dimensions

From recent changes in various places in MOS, and a growing use of terms such as "4 × 4", "4×4", or "1920×1080" it appears the time has come to revisit the use of "×" and "x" when substituting for "by".

My understanding of the current consensus from reading the the various MOS pages (prior to the changes made in the last 36 hours) and reading through a few of the threads in the archives on this topic is that the consensus as of the last time this was discussed was:

• "x" can be used as a substitute for "by", but only unspaced. Example: "1920x1080".
• "×" can be used as a substitute for "by", but only if units are specified, and spaces must be used. Example: "1920 pixels × 1080 pixels". The primary concern expressed was the possible confusion by a naive reader of reading "×" as multiplication.

My personal interpretation of the consensus has been that "×" is acceptable in some other situations if the use in that instance has been explicitly defined as "by". Thus, in some editing situations I have let the use of "×" stand when a naive reader could not confuse the use of "×" with multiplication. Examples:

1. Tables where the units were specified in the header but the actual text in the table did not have units (e.g. "1920 × 1200" where the header states "x (px) × y (px)".
2. The four-wheel drive article uses "4×4", instead of 4x4. The use of "4×4" is clear in that article because it is explicitly stated in the first sentence of the article that "4×4" is being used in that manner within the article.

However, my interpretation in these instances is from reading the concerns expressed in the discussions of the issue, not the actual statement of the consensus.

Some of the history of earlier discussions on this issue is contained in the following archives:

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 77#How to write "four by four" (source of 4x4 example, original discussion initiated about arrays of pixels)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 100#2 by 4 inches (50 mm × 100 mm)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 108#Letter X vs. multiplication sign (very brief)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 138#Two by five chains is no furlong
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 120#Proposal: Delete guideline that bans "70 × 90 cm" and mandates "70 cm × 90 cm"
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 134#5.7×28mm
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 97#Common mathematical symbols: spacing (tangential)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 143#Width first or height for screen sizes? And inches again.. (tangential)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 24#Seventh attempt at a revised wording for the 'Units' section (brief on this issue, but first use)

I believe I recall reading at least one more longer discussion which I am just not finding right now. Search seems less effective than it used to be, or my search-fu is low.

The problems are (at least):

• We have a significant number of articles which now use the "1920×1080", "1920 × 1080", and "1920 × 1080 pixel" formats.
• We have some editors who prefer the "1920×1080" format, and some who prefer the "1920x1080" format. There have been times when articles have been changed back and forth between formats. It would be nice to have a bit more clarity.

The formats we currently have as acceptable are:

1. "1920x1080"
2. "1920 pixels × 1080 pixels"
3. "1920 by 1080" (if no actual units), "1920 by 1080 pixels", and "1920 pixels by 1080 pixels"

Do we want to add additional acceptable formats? If so, which ones? — Makyen (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally I'd gravitate towards using "x" (e.g. "1920x1080"), as display resolutions are not mathematical formulae (so WP:⋅ doesn't really apply). The pixel counts are generally not given for the purposes of multiplication, and are almost universally pronounced with "by", so "x" seems more appropriate. I'm not necessarily opposed to using × either, but it seems to me like the extra requirements for it (spaced and accompanied by a unit) would introduce extra maintenance overhead, whereas most people (especially novice editors) don't need to read guidelines to be able to correctly write "1920x1080".

So long as consistency within each article is maintained and change for the sake of change (like some recent edits) is discouraged, I'd be fine with sticking with the currently accepted formats as listed above. Indrek (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer "×" in all cases. Although "1920 pixels × 1080 pixels" is not generally seen as a mathematical calculation, in essence, it is one: it describes a display consisting of 2,073,600 pixels, which is calculated by multiplying the numbers. That's what the symbol represents. It has no semantic meaning related to the letter "x"; it just happens that the graphic representations of these characters are so similar that "x" is commonly used for "×" (also because the former is easier to type), but strictly speaking, "×" is the correct symbol. It should be spaced, too, as with mathematical equations. —sroc 💬 15:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. "x" should only be used because you don't have font support for "×". It can be difficult to read, for one thing: "1920x1080" looks like one long number in my display font. Whenever I come across "x" I correct it, just as I correct double hyphens used as a shortcut for dashes. — kwami (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreeing with sroc and kwami. Disagreeing with Makyen's examples (more in the edit history and user talk page) and I don't believe the MOS or consensus supports them.

However, to better guide good faith users such as Makyen in interpreting the MOS I suggest we add clarification in the following four areas:

1) An example should point out that statements such as "1920 × 1080" re display resolutions do in fact imply multiplication whether you are interested in calculating the resulting total number or not, therefore "×" is the correct symbol.

2) There must be nothing to confuse editors to believe that just because something is pronounced "by" there is no multiplication and therefore somehow letter "x" would be ok. The unfortunate "4x4" drivetrain example has had that effect. If that example is to survive, we may need to emphasize its word "may" and its restriction "common terms".

3) Regarding units, I believe "1920 × 1080 pixels" is correct and in fact preferable to "1920 pixels × 1080 pixels". I don't consider it analogous to examples such as "2 in × 4 in" because a pixel is an inherently two-dimensional physical entity and its counts in a graphics array are simple dimensionless numbers which therefore themselves don't have units.

I suggest we avoid unreasonable interpretations of the MOS's statement that "[w]hen the multiplication sign is used, each number should be followed by a unit name or symbol" by adding something like "unless a number indicates a simple count (which is dimensionless, i.e. inherently has no unit)" and at least one example such as:

* "The multiplication table says 5 × 5 = 25"

* "She walked 7 km 12 times. Therefore she walked 12 × 7 km = 84 km"

* "The display uses pixels arranged in an array of 1920 columns and 1080 rows. The display resolution can be calculated with the formula: 1920 × 1080 pixels = 2,073,600 pixels (around 2 megapixels)"

* "Each tile measures 2 ft × 2 ft = 4 sq ft. If you arrange them in a 2 × 3  rectangle you cover 2 × 3 × 4 sq ft = 24 sq ft"

4) Re spaces surrounding "×", I personally believe they should be used where they make formulae more readable but they shouldn't be strictly required. They should be optional in a compact context such as "The LCD shows 2×16 characters of 8×8 pixels". (And a minor benefit is not risking editors forget to use nonbreaking spaces.) I do however agree that spaces should be explicitly forbidden if the unfortunate "4x4" drive train example is to remain because otherwise they would break that up so that it is no longer a "common term", but we may need clarification that that is not to be read as to use the letter "x" if you don't want to use spaces, which someone may have beleived.WinTakeAll (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, except that I would use much simpler examples:

"a 1080×720-pixel screen",

"a 2×3 rectangle" (or "two-by-three rectangle").

As for mandating multiple tokens of the unit, consider {{val}}, which departs from ISO standards by not repeating the unit. That template is used in physics and astronomy articles, where you might expect people to get uptight about units. We even had a big argument over an unrelated issue that focused a good amount of attention on how it formats numbers and units. At 4 Vesta, for example, we give the dimensions as

(572.6 × 557.2 × 446.4) ± 0.2 km.

If a little common sense is okay there, it should be okay here.

We might want to think about the spacing a bit. Spacing is clearly beneficial to legibility in equations and examples like Vesta. However, when used attributively, they become a problem, because we can't use hyphens and it starts getting confusing where the attributive phrase begins. Imagine:

? "a 2 × 3 rectangle" [Seems like an oversimplification. Would need expansion e.g. to "a 2 × 3 rectangle of tiles" to point out there are no units of length. -WinTakeAll]

? "a 1080 × 720-pixel screen" (or should that be "a 1080 × 720–pixel screen" with an en dash?)

That is, "4×4" without spaces is equivalent to "four-by-four" with hyphens: Both strategies bind the phrase together so that it's obvious what is modifying what. — kwami (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Multiple comments here have demonstrated one of the reasons I have serious concerns about the use of "×" in these abbreviated formats. The concern is that when "×" is used multiple possible interpretations exist for the text. Even sophisticated readers have an increased tendency to conflate the possible meanings being represented. Multiple people above have stated that "1920 pixels * 1080 pixels display" is also talking about multiplication. It is most certainly not talking about multiplication (an action), it is talking about display containing a 2 dimensional, rectangular array of pixels (an object). The fact that you can use multiplication (action) to determine another property of the array, the total number of pixels, is just how it works, but the multiplication (action) and the array (object) are two very separate things. Overloading the use of "×" for "by" blurs that distinction. It is quite possible to be talking about one and not the other. In fact, I believe it to be much more prevalent to be talking only about one interpretation rather than both at the same time. Using "×" in both manners adds ambiguity when doing so is just not needed and the added ambiguity makes it inappropriate.

My personal opinion is:

• Neither "x" nor "×" should be generally used in this manner in prose, or where space is not at a premium. Using a spaced "×" instead of "by" saves all of one character. The cost of the ambiguity is not worth it. "By" should be used in almost all cases.
• The use of whatever abbreviated format(s) we decide upon should be considered for use only:

• In locations where space is at a premium. For example, some tables.
• When a large number of such objects are being referred to throughout the text. The use of an alternate format can make the text flow and read smoother in some cases.

As to formats: I tend to use an unspaced "x", mostly out of long habit. However, having thought about it quite a bit, I prefer the unspaced "x" because it leaves no ambiguity as to what is being referred. "1920x1080" is not confused with multiplication. Is it the best possible solution? No. It would be nice if there was a specific character which had as its only use to mean the separation of two numeric values in the description of an array or dimension. Unfortunately, there is not such a character.

I agree that "1920x1080" does not visually separate the numbers as well as "1920×1080" does. I just don't think that the extra visual appeal of "1920×1080" justifies the potential ambiguity introduced by the use of the "×" character. In situations where the format has been clearly stated to be representing something other than multiplication, I do not have a problem with it. My original post has two examples of that type of situation. The problem is that we are defining a style that will be used throughout the English Wikipedia. We can not control each instance where a format will be used to be sure that the writer has provided enough extra explanatory material to make it clear as to what is being represented by a format that has multiple potential interpretations, which are often all reasonably valid interpretations of the text when read by a naive reader.

@WinTakeAll: As to your arguments wrt. my misinterpretation of what MOS currently states and the consensus behind those words: I believe you are wrong. I suggest that you actually read the discussions linked in the original post to see the discussion which went on to form the current consensus. While you do so, I would hope that you set aside your current point of view and try to understand the conversations without bias. My point of view is that you have made statements in various places that directly contradict the very explicit text and examples contained on the MOS pages, and you have tried to make changes to those pages because they do not say what you want them to. However, continuing a discussion as to my, your, or anyone's understanding of the current consensus is not as productive a use of our time as might be possible. We have begun a discussion from which will, hopefully, arise a consensus which we can use moving forward until such time as it is appropriate to revisit it again.

— Makyen (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

To sum up: Does anyone share Makyen's POV that "1920x1080" is preferable to "1920×1080" for reasons of disambiguation? I don't.

Can we remove the "4x4" drive train example used to promote letter "x" for other cases of "m-by-n"? After all, the consensus on its page is clearly to write it "4×4", never mind that it is quite a confused term on its own. -WinTakeAll (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that for disambiguation purposes the letter "x" is a better choice, and disagree with User:WinTakeAll that multiplication is the implied purpose of listing pixel counts. Yes, the total number of pixels can be useful, depending on the context, but in such cases it is always given explicitly, in appropriate units (e.g. megapixels), precisely because readers are not meant to multiply the pixel counts themselves.

If you think about it, dividing the pixel counts is just as useful an operation as multiplication (to determine the aspect ratio), but that doesn't mean we should start writing resolutions as "1920/1080" or "1920÷1080".

I don't think that readability is much of an issue with common fonts. Maybe if the letter "x" was uppercase ("1920X1080"), but a lowercase "x" is a pretty clear delimiter.

As for the "4x4" example, are we sure it refers to the type of drivetrain? I was sure I read somewhere (possibly by User:Makyen) that it was originally meant to describe pixel arrays. Even if the example does refer to a drivetrain, then I think it should stay and the article be updated instead, because in that case there is even less reason to use the multiplication sign than with display resolutions, because the result of the multiplication (16) is not even a useful number (a 4x4 car does not have 16 wheels). See also Tractor unit, which uses "x" to describe drivetrain configurations.

Indrek (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I believe they are wrong on the following points:

"disambiguation purposes": There is no disambiguation because "x" and "×" are used all over the place to mean the same—multiplication. However the former is not supported by MOS since it is incorrect. (Although it is a tolerated approximation in cases outside of WP where "×" is unavailable, such as US ASCII constrained text files or old mechanical typewriters.)

"disagree with ... that multiplication is the implied purpose of listing pixel counts": It is, because the definition of a pixel based device's resolution is tied to its total count of pixels. A pixel resolution is considered higher than another if it has a higher total count of pixels, which you get to by multiplying.

"total number of pixels can be useful ... but in such cases it is always given explicitly ... (e.g. megapixels): It is very often not given explicitly. There are countless examples such "the new model's resolution is quadrupled—from 320×480 to 640×960"

"dividing the pixel counts is just as useful ... as multiplication": Dividing is not useful for specifying resolution; it is however useful for specifying aspect ratios but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. "1280×800" is not the same resolution as "1440×900" just because they share the same aspect ratio of 1.6.

"don't think that readability is much of an issue with common fonts": It is. "×" visibly separates numbers much better than "x" in every font because it is positioned differently and uses a different line stroke than numbers. Particularly valuable in fonts with text figures such as Georgia, WP's standard example font (part of Core fonts for the Web), cf. 32x24 vs 32×24. But even if the "x" or any other symbol did happen to better separate the numbers, I wouldn't use that to justify an incorrect notation.

"are we sure it refers to the type of drivetrain": Yes we are because that's where the editor has linked it and because of the mention of "common terms such as 4x4". The myriads of resolutions out there aren't common terms, and a tiny resolution of 4×4 pixels would have been a poor choice of one to use as an example. -WinTakeAll (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no disambiguation because "x" and "×" are used all over the place to mean the same—multiplication. That is clearly not the case, as the "four-by-four" example demonstrates. There is ambiguity, which should be resolved by not using the multiplication sign where multiplication is not intended. The main issue, then, is whether or not multiplication is intended when describing display resolutions (or pixel-based devices in general).

It is, because the definition of a pixel based device's resolution is tied to its total count of pixels. Incorrect. The resolution of a pixel-based device is defined by the number of distinct pixels in each dimension (see display resolution), not the total pixel count. For instance, 480x250 and 400x300 are distinct resolutions, despite having the same total pixel count (120000). Ditto for 1600x768 vs. 1280x960, and probably more.

Dividing is not useful for specifying resolution I didn't say it was, I simply said that it was useful, period. We shouldn't assume that multiplying the pixel counts is the default operation when division is just as useful and common (arguably even more common, at least with display devices). My point was that "1920x1080" doesn't (and shouldn't) specify a mathematical operation of 1920 × 1080 anymore that it specifies a mathematical operation of 1920 ÷ 1080.

It is. "×" visibly separates numbers much better than "x" in every font because it is positionened higher than numbers. Oh, I agree that "×" is a slightly better separator. What I was saying was that "x" is good enough.

Yes we are because that's where the editor has linked it and because of the mention of "common terms such as 4x4". Fair enough, I guess. The rest of my point still stands, though, with regards to not using the multiplication sign in that particular case.

Indrek (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The original discussion in which the 4x4 example was generated is the first link I provided to the history of this discussion. The first sentence, written by SandyGeorgia includes "...we find: Sprites can be 8x8, 16x16, 32x32, or 64x64 pixels, ... is that correct and is it covered?" The "4x4" example comes into the thread slightly later and is unspecified as to its intended meaning. However, the paragraph in which it is located talks mainly about wood (e.g. 2x4, 4x6).

@WinTakeAll: Your logic that the fact "4x4" is linked to the Four-wheel drive article is proof that "4x4" is supposed to mean "drive train" in this instance is flawed. Among other flaws, it rests on the assumption that text "4x4" was linked by the original editor to the Four-wheel drive. People add links to articles all the time; often just because that person thinks of an association, not because the specific text actually is intended to mean what is then linked to. The text "4x4" was originally entered on 30 July 2007. It existed on the project page not linked for 6.5 years until linked 2 days ago on 11 March 2014 by EEng. So, yes, to EEng, who is also the person who changed the wording to "conventional terms" from "terms", the text "4x4" is associated with drive trains. However, using similar logic to yours, then the converse must be true and the fact that it was not linked for 6.5 years – throughout which time the 4x4 redirect page did exist and could have been linked – means that it it was certainly not intended to mean drive trains, or at least not to be limited to that.

@WinTakeAll: Two requests: First, please do not put new comments within other people's posts on the same line as their text. It borders on editing the posts of someone else which is seriously frowned upon. Second, please do not edit your own posts, even to make grammar or spelling corrections, after they have been replied to by others without indicating that the post has been changed. While the changes you made to your own post(s) here were not that significant, you have made such changes more extensively elsewhere. There are some good reasons to edit your own posts. WP:REDACT has a list of such reasons, and suggestions how to make such edits. I would suggest you read all of WP:TALK.

Prior to this conversation, I was almost ambivalent as to possibly changing over to using "×". This conversation has convinced me that its use as a separator in text describing two dimensional rectangular arrays helps generate confusion which is significantly more widespread than I previously believed. It is clear that this confusion exists and is detrimental. In order to reduce this confusion, I would strongly prefer to not use "×" at all for this purpose (perhaps continuing its use in the fully spaced and with both units version). The additional cost of, at most, 3 characters per instance to use the full, spaced "1920 by 1080" format is trivial when compared to the ambiguity introduced, and increased confusion generated by the use of "×" for this purpose. This cost of 3 characters assumes the the unspaced "x" format is eventually deemed unacceptable, if it is acceptable, then the benefit of using "×" is either one to three characters, or slightly enhanced readability. None of those benefits outweighs the cost in ambiguity and confusion. — Makyen (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I prefer "×" in all cases on Wikipedia. The "x" is shorthand for "×" in contexts where it cannot be generated (typewriters, marquees, ads where the "×", even if available, would be misread by the typesetter, etc.). The ambiguity is minimal. In other words: Unspaced "x" represents unspaced "×"; it's acceptable for entry, but should be repoaced by bot. Spaced "x" is unacceptable. Spaced or unspaced "×" is acceptable. Spaced "by" is usually acceptable. I would like to see evidence than anyone except Makyen is confused. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that "x" is widely used for specifying resolutions of pixel-based devices outside of Wikipedia - tech news and reviews, spec sheets for displays and image sensors, and so on. In many of those cases I don't think the argument that "×" is unavailable or inconvenient holds water, as similar special symbols (e.g. superscript numbers or non-Latin letters) are also used. The fact seems to be that "x" is acceptable in a lot of contexts, it isn't just "shorthand that should be replaced". I'm not saying that Wikipedia necessarily needs to follow the herd, so to speak, but at the very least I think it allows us to discard any remaining concerns about the legibility of "x" as a separator, given the wide variety of fonts and text sizes it's been used in, apparently with no problems whatsoever. Indrek (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Sroc: "Anyway, the argument that we could easily use "m÷n pixels" because it can be useful (in determining aspect ratio) is invalid because that's not how people specify resolution (which is the intended meaning of "m×n pixels" in the real world)." (Responding here because the below subsection where you posted this is hopelessly derailed.) I wasn't actually suggesting that we should write resolutions using the division sign (indeed, I explicitly stated that this shouldn't be done), I was just pointing out that just because we can multiply the numbers doesn't mean we must use the multiplication sign. In fact, by your own logic, we shouldn't use the multiplication sign, because "that's not how people specify resolution" - the most commonly used symbol is the lowercase letter "x". Yes, you can argue that "x" is just a convenient shorthand for "×" (debatable), but at the very most that's an argument for using "×", not against using "x". Personally, I would argue that "x" is shorthand for "by" and there are cases where it doesn't necessarily mean multiplication. Drivetrain configurations like the oft-mentioned "4x4" are a good example (clearly a 4x4 vehicle does not have 4 × 4 wheels), and I see no reason why resolutions of pixel-based devices couldn't also be considered such. After all, as I've explained above, resolution is defined by pixel counts in each dimension, not their product. In other words, it's the individual numbers that matter, and the primary purpose of the symbol between them is to visually separate the numbers (of which "x" is doing a good enough job). Any mathematical operations that the symbol might imply and that might yield a useful result are of secondary importance at best. Indrek (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• See also Wiktionary where the applicable definition (13) of "by" is "Used to separate dimensions when describing the size of something" (emphasis mine). TheFreeDictionary and Dictionary.com also give essentially the same definition (12b and 18, respectively), and distinguish this use from mathematical operations like multiplication and division. Resolutions are read with simply "by", e.g. "nineteen-twenty by ten-eighty", not "nineteen-twenty multiplied by ten-eighty". Indrek (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Indrek: "Yes, you can argue that 'x' is just a convenient shorthand for '×' (debatable), but at the very most that's an argument for using '×', not against using 'x'." That is, in fact, what I argued. It is evident that "×" is the correct symbol in cases of "m × n pixels" and "4 × 4" because it is derived from the concept of multiplication, even if it is not directly advising the reader to multiply the numbers. Indeed, Multiplication sign#Uses states:

In mathematics, the symbol × (read as times or multiplied by) is primarily used to denote the

• Multiplication of two numbers
• Cross product of two vectors
• Cartesian product of two sets
• Geometric dimension of an object, such as noting that a room is 10 feet × 12 feet in area, where it is usually read as "by" (for example: "10 feet by 12 feet")
• Dimensions of a matrix

Conversely, I have yet to see any argument that the letter "x" has any semantic or etymological relation to such uses, other that the glpyhs looking similar. I have read no cogent argument why "x" is preferable to "×" other than being easier to type.

Similarly, Merriam-Webster's definition of "by" states:

10 —used as a function word in multiplication, in division, and in measurements <divide a by b> <multiply 10 by 4> <a room 15 feet by 20 feet>

Thus, it is clear that the "by" in "m by n pixels" and "4 by 4" is indeed related to multiplication and that measurement dimensions are treated in the same way as multiplication. —sroc 💬 04:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Thus, it is clear that the "by" in "m by n pixels" and "4 by 4" is indeed related to multiplication and that measurement dimensions are treated in the same way as multiplication." I've explained multiple times that the "by" in terms like "four-by-four" is in fact not related to multiplication. If you disagree, kindly explain in what way is the product of that multiplication (4 × 4 = 16) related to four-wheel-drive.

Also, we have two sources distinguishing use for array dimensions from use for multiplication/division, one source not distinguishing them, and one not even mentioning multiplication/division. It seems to me that the only way one could call that situation "clear" is by selectively choosing to overlook sources that don't support one's point of view. But thanks for the Merriam-Webster link.

As for reasons to prefer (or at least allow) "x"? A) It's what people actually use to denote resolutions (an important consideration, by your own admission); B) it's just as easy to read as "×"; and C) it's not subject to the same strict requirements as "×" (which needs to be spaced and each number followed by a unit). And yes, of course that it's easier to type. To clarify, as far as resolutions are concerned, I'm not arguing that "×" is incorrect and should be forbidden. It was primarily Makyen who expressed concerns about using "×", and that's a subject I'd like to see addressed in a bit more detail. But those concerns notwithstanding, my opinion (as I've stated above) is that both "x" and "×" are OK, so long as consistency within each article is maintained. Getting the ambiguities in the various MOS pages cleared up would also be nice. Indrek (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No one gives a shit

This is a typical Talk:MOS waste of time and brainpower. In nailing a 2x4 or driving a 4x4 an alphabetic x is just fine—everyone knows what it means and how it would be read out, because these are conventional ways for writing such things. Trying to legislate such usage away is spitting in the wind, and is just another opportunity for editors to busy themselves making trivial "corrections" all over the place while tsk-tsking at people who actually dare to contribute content prior to crowding their brains MOS' minute hyperprescriptions.

Other than that I will only say that no one's going to be confused or misled by any of these formats, nor is there any grammatical or mathematical blunder, by which WP's reputation might be besmirched, to be avoided here. Arguing about whether a mathematical operation is implied is ridiculous. The choice of format is a matter of aesthetics, and it matters little if different articles adopt different formats, though each article should be internally consistent. The endash-emdash (or is it endash–emdash?) guideline (WP:EMDASH) is the right analogy here.

The problem with these conversations is that they are so bloated, relative to the importance of the issue at hand, that all are dissuaded from participating except obsessed zealots, who after endless arguing come up with some convoluted prescription everyone else ignores. No one gives a shit.

EEng (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't use bad language. My view is that the use of the proper mathematical symbol should be maximised. Apart from other reasons expressed above, it looks better. Tony (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't fuss about "good" or "bad" language. You seem to recognize that this question is, at least to a large degree, just a matter of taste, so I say again that WP:EMDASH is the right model. EEng (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@EEng: The thing is, you clearly "give a shit". If you did not care significantly about this then you would not have changed the wording on the project page from "terms" to "conventional terms" and made the change bold. It is ridiculous to harangue other people in the manner you have done above when your intentional actions – not just a copy & paste – clearly indicate that you have a stake in this issue. — Makyen (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I inserted conventional to clarify the use of alphabetic x in writing names of things which are, well, conventionally spoken as "something-by-something" -- two-by-four lumber, three-by-five file cards, etc., which I thought was the intention of the guideline. I added the bold because -- as even a brief review of the edit history will show -- I've been bolding key phrases systematically, throughout the page, to make it easier for editors to locate the guideline on any particular point. That you are able to infuse such innocent changes with dark and malignant motives adds to the impression of paranoid alarmism warned of by Wbm1058 below. EEng (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

EEng, I have never thought you have had dark and malignant motives. I don't believe anyone around here has dark and malignant motives. I have thought, multiple times, the work you've done is excellent and that you have put in a huge amount of time and effort, which has been less than fully appreciated.

If the specific changes at issue had not been used as the basis of, and reason for, propagating changes by others elsewhere, or used as the basis for arguments (above), I would have had no problem with them. Frankly, I did not think about those changes much until WinTakeAll started using the exact wording and emphasis (linking) as a basis for arguments (above, and on my talk page). I certainly did not, and do not, believe you had any motive beyond improving Wikipedia. My mentioning that the changes had been made recently was not intended to have anything to do with it being you that had made the changes, only that the changes were recent, days, and had not had enough time pass to indicate that they were so firmly a part of the consensus that the details changed should be used as the basis for arguing that other changes should be made. [NOTE: exactly such an argument was made above (the meaning of "4x4" being linked), and the argument accepted by another editor.]

Frankly, my assumption had been that the changes you made were basically for the reasons you detail above – bolding for convenience, etc. – and that they were not intended to change the meaning. My issue was not with you or your changes. My issue was with someone else using the specific details in your changes, which had been made with no intent to change meaning, as the basis for arguments.

Perhaps I should not have mention you by name as the editor who happened to make those changes. At the time, I did state you as the author of the changes because I did not feel it appropriate to reference the change without giving attribution.

Reading parts of what I wrote over again, it does appear that my tendency to be overly verbose led to too much text indicating you as the contributor. It should have been trimmed prior to saving. I also realize now, that I used you as the subject in a rhetorical argument intended to show the fallacies in the original argument based on the fact that "4x4" was linked. I'm sorry about doing so. I should have kept your name out of any involvement in that.

On the other hand, I did feel your statement that begins this section, and your titling the section "No one gives a shit" was beyond what was appropriate in its tone, although I understand the sentiment. Perhaps my reaction above to the tone of both of those was a bit strong, and for that I apologize. — Makyen (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

And I apologize as well, but you gotta compress your posts or people are going to judge you, in advance, as crazy -- TLDR. I suggest you take a long break, then start over with a simple, short-as-possible post. EEng (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I am in the same line as EEng. Clear wording notwithstanding. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with Makyen, the originator of this discussion

• "Even sophisticated readers have an increased tendency to conflate the possible meanings being represented. Multiple people above have stated that "1920 pixels * 1080 pixels display" is also talking about multiplication. It is most certainly not talking about multiplication (an action), it is talking about display containing a 2 dimensional, rectangular array of pixels (an object). The fact that you can use multiplication (action) to determine another property of the array, the total number of pixels, is just how it works, but the multiplication (action) and the array (object) are two very separate things. Overloading the use of "×" for "by" blurs that distinction. It is quite possible to be talking about one and not the other. In fact, I believe it to be much more prevalent to be talking only about one interpretation rather than both at the same time. Using "×" in both manners adds ambiguity when doing so is just not needed and the added ambiguity makes it inappropriate." Please. You have taken something relatively simple, that I thought even most "Randys" understood, and just twisted it up so much that my mind is spinning. You're insisting on creating a significant and important distinction where no relevant or material distinction actually exists.
• Does "1920 pixels by 1080 pixels" mean "1920 pixels in close proximity to 1080 pixels, as in "by" meaning nearby? Wouldn't using an × avoid that confusion?
• The unspaced "x" indeed leaves no ambiguity as to what is being referred. "1920x1080" is not confused with multiplication. 1920x1080 is clearly a model number (and the next generation of that product has model number 1920y1080).
• I do not believe that your interpretation of the only three currently acceptable formats is correct. Perhaps all three of your examples may be acceptable, but none of them are ideal in certain contexts and usage.
• If you push on this issue too hard, you risk gaining a reputation similar Apteva's regarding hyphens and dashes, where "Hyphens can be used for initial entry of any of the above, and replacement with a more precise form may be done by other subsequent editors. Disrupting Wikipedia to constantly complain about the consensus for the more precise forms can be annoying." Here I might say that "by" and "x" may be used for initial entry of array dimensions, and replacement with "×" may be done by other subsequent editors. Disrupting Wikipedia to constantly complain about the consensus for "×" can be annoying. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Is the "by" in "4×4" or "2×4" etymologically derived from "multiplied by"? Anyway, the argument that we could easily use "m÷n pixels" because it can be useful (in determining aspect ratio) is invalid because that's not how people specify resolution (which is the intended meaning of "m×n pixels" in the real world).

If a preference is to be stated, it should be for "×" over "x". It is a matter for consensus to determine whether both forms should be permitted, although I note that MOS:MINUS (the link is currently broken) [link fixed] requires that − be used rather than a hyphen or en dash, which is nothing new although there are good reasons for this which were previously stated and have recently been deleted. —sroc 💬 22:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I started this discussion because I desired we end up with the project page not explicitly excluding text that has become common on article pages. Currently, the project page explicitly excludes using the symbol "×" to specify dimensions without using units on all numbers. It says so very explicitly and gives examples of wrong ways of writing dimensions. I routinely see editors entering such text, and some editors specifically going through articles changing them to using such text.

Frankly, I did not care if the issue of pages using formats explicitly not permitted was resolved by changing the project page, or by changing the text on article pages. EEng made a change in February to the text on the project page from "Dimensions may be given using the" to "Length-width-height–type dimensions may use the" which at least opens up the possibility of arguing that the specification is only to apply when three dimensions are given. NOTE: I don't recall seeing any discussion on the talk page regarding limiting the guideline on dimensions to only "Length-width-height–type dimensions". From what I recall from looking at the archives, such limitation was certainly not part of the original consensus.

In my initial post, I attempted to be neutral to the issue, and only describe what discussions had gone before and what the project page explicitly states. My goal was, and is, to engender discussion on the issue and eventually reach a consensus.

However, when two of the first four people to respond to the thread effectively said that describing an array was multiplication, I started to be concerned. Describing an array and multiplication are two very different things. Multiplication can be used to determine properties of the array, but it is not the array itself. I don't know if the use of the multiplication symbol to separate the dimensions of the array is contributing to this impression on their, and probably other peoples, part or not. However, it does seem like it would contribute to the lack of distinction between the object and the action which has been expressed above. The hope of not having the distinction between these two become even more blurred for more people is what has me leaning in the direction of being against using "×" as a separator in describing dimensions/arrays.

I interpret a variety of comments from other editors to indicate that they believe I am rabidly for using "x" over "×". I am not. I am not sure what has given that impression. Do I personally use, "x" over "×"? Yes. Do I, now, think that using "×" has potential negative consequences that outweighs the visual benefit from using it? Yes. Am I rabidly one way, or the other? No.

@Wbm1058: Your making the statement: "Disrupting Wikipedia to constantly complain about the consensus for "×" can be annoying" and putting it in a section that has a heading title with my user name implies that you believe I am disrupting Wikipedia when talking about consensus. I don't believe that I am, or have ever, disrupted Wikipedia. If you could point out some specific examples where I have disrupted Wikipedia so I can see where that is the case and modify my behavior, I would appreciate it. If there are actually any such cases, I would prefer that you do so on my talk page rather than here, but if you feel it more appropriate to do do so here, then go ahead. I really am not sure to what you are referring, and I would like to know. Is it that you have an issue with my being conscientious enough to take the time to find, and read, the old discussions so I could get an idea about what consensus was actually reached in prior discussions rather than blindly assuming I know exactly what was intended from looking at very little information?

WP:CONS says "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia". Let's all try to continue this process of forming a new consensus without straying into arguments which begin to border on personal attacks. — Makyen (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't occur to me that anyone would be idiotic enough to interpret the phrase Length-width-height–type dimensions as excluding e.g. length-width-depth or length-width (only) or similar things. Again, your rabid hysteria is beginning to sound really crazy. Anyway, I've added further examples for the avoidance of doubt. EEng (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)When a couple of editors I respect say what I am doing is "disruptive", or "rabid hysteria" which is sounding "really crazy" it is certainly time for me to step back and try to figure out what it is I am doing which is objectionable. I will do so.

Prior to doing so, I feel I should try to correct what appears to be a significant error on my part:

EEng, I agree, it did not naturally occur to me that someone would believe the phase Length-width-height–type dimensions was intended to restrict the guideline.

The comments with respect to 2D vs 3D notation were not intended to be public, and are poorly written. They should have been deleted prior to saving. They follow a thought experiment trying to figure out some hypothetical other person's thought process. It is not an argument I was putting forward myself. The thought experiment was prompted by having just re-read the argument put forward (above) by WinTakeAll that the dimension guideline should not apply to pixel dimensions because "a pixel is an inherently two-dimensional physical entity".

Given that argument was ... something I had not previously considered, I was attempting a thought experiment to see if I could come up with some other argument I had not previously considered. Because that text was not intended to be public and potentially imputes another editor, I have struck it out. As it has been quoted and commented upon by a third editor, I understand the situation to be such that it is no longer appropriate for me to strike out that text. — Makyen (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

1. I started this discussion because I desired we end up with the project page not explicitly excluding text that has become common on article pages. OK
2. Currently, the project page explicitly excludes using the symbol "×" to specify dimensions without using units on all numbers. It says so very explicitly and gives examples of wrong ways of writing dimensions. I routinely see editors entering such text, and some editors specifically going through articles changing them to using such text. Frankly, I did not care if the issue of pages using formats explicitly not permitted was resolved by changing the project page, or by changing the text on article pages. EEng made a change in February to the text on the project page from "Dimensions may be given using the" to "Length-width-height–type dimensions may use the" which at least opens up the possibility of arguing that the specification is only to apply when three dimensions are given. NOTE: I don't recall seeing any discussion on the talk page regarding limiting the guideline on dimensions to only "Length-width-height–type dimensions". From what I recall from looking at the archives, such limitation was certainly not part of the original consensus. Thankyou for bringing this to my attention, but this is off-topic for this section.
3. In my initial post, I attempted to be neutral to the issue, and only describe what discussions had gone before and what the project page explicitly states. My goal was, and is, to engender discussion on the issue and eventually reach a consensus. An admirable goal. Describing what the project page explicitly states is at best difficult, when it is being changed so often. Over 400 edits so far this year... Four hundred edits in 2 1⁄2 months! This is supposed to be a guideline, how can anyone respect a guideline that is not itself being respected? Where is the respect for {{MoS-guideline}}? Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus. I do see that Makyen has been pretty good in this regard, and that this excessive guideline editing is mostly by others. Some of these edits may be OK and uncontroversial, but Makyen's point #2 above is certainly cause for concern.
4. However, when two of the first four people to respond to the thread effectively said that describing an array was multiplication, I started to be concerned. Describing an array and multiplication are two very different things. Multiplication can be used to determine properties of the array, but it is not the array itself. I don't know if the use of the multiplication symbol to separate the dimensions of the array is contributing to this impression on their, and probably other peoples, part or not. However, it does seem like it would contribute to the lack of distinction between the object and the action which has been expressed above. The hope of not having the distinction between these two become even more blurred for more people is what has me leaning in the direction of being against using "×" as a separator in describing dimensions/arrays. I interpret a variety of comments from other editors to indicate that they believe I am rabidly for using "x" over "×". I am not. I am not sure what has given that impression. Do I personally use, "x" over "×"? Yes. Do I, now, think that using "×" has potential negative consequences that outweighs the visual benefit from using it? Yes. Am I rabidly one way, or the other? No.
   1. An array (definition) is a systematic arrangement of objects, usually in rows and columns. What we are discussing here is more specifically usage of the term in programming: Any of various data structures designed to hold multiple elements of the same type; especially, a data structure that holds these elements in adjacent memory locations so that they may be retrieved using numeric indices. And a particular application of arrays: pixel arrays as described in the article on display resolution.
   2. "Describing an array" is not multiplication. I don't think anyone claimed that it was.
   3. "Describing an array and multiplication are two very different things." What's the point of this point? Describing a steering wheel and measuring its diameter are two "very different things". Describing a steering wheel and identifying its RGB color are two "very different things". Describing a steering wheel and driving are two "very different things". Describing a steering wheel and the planet Mars are two really different things. So what?
   4. Multiplication can be used to determine properties of the array, but it is not the array itself. This can be better restated as "Multiplication can be used to determine the number of array elements, but it is not the array itself." And the RGB color model can be used to describe the color of a steering wheel, but is not the steering wheel itself.
   5. The use of the multiplication symbol to separate the dimensions of an array is not contributing to any false impressions, such as "multiplication is an array", "an object is an action". Do you have any evidence that it is? The use of the multiplication symbol to separate the dimensions of an array is, hopefully, contributing to the correct impression that the dimensions may be multiplied together to determine the number of array elements, and by describing that particular property of the array, is also helping to describe the array itself. The multiplication symbol is not commanding the reader to multiply the numbers together. But, this argument for preferring the letter x over the symbol × is a nonstarter because the letter x is used as a proxy for the symbol for multiplication. Otherwise, array dimensions would be described as "1920 ex 1080" rather than "1920 by 1080". It's used as a proxy by people who don't know how to enter the symbol on their keyboards, among other reasons. "By" can generally be considered to be shorthand for "multiplied by", although there are notable exceptions like four-wheel-drive vehicles. If I say that a room is 10 × 12 feet, is there any confusion about what I mean? The room is 120 square feet in size, and if it was a 10 foot × 12 yard room, I would have said so. Mixing dimensions in that way is not generally done.
   6. The impression that you are "rabid" (your word, not mine) is fostered by:
      1. The time and effort you have "required" me to put in to make a serious and thoughtful response to your last post to this thread. I hope you are not trolling me.
      2. Your edits to Display resolution and other related articles which are overturning a defacto consensus, if not one that has been explicitly stated in this guideline, neither is there consensus for not using the × symbol in these articles. The sheer number of articles using the symbol should have alerted you to the idea that changing it would be at least potentially controversial.
5. @Wbm1058: Your making the statement: "Disrupting Wikipedia to constantly complain about the consensus for "×" can be annoying" and putting it in a section that has a heading title with my user name implies that you believe I am disrupting Wikipedia when talking about consensus. I don't believe that I am, or have ever, disrupted Wikipedia. If you could point out some specific examples where I have disrupted Wikipedia so I can see where that is the case and modify my behavior, I would appreciate it. If there are actually any such cases, I would prefer that you do so on my talk page rather than here, but if you feel it more appropriate to do do so here, then go ahead. I really am not sure to what you are referring, and I would like to know. Is it that you have an issue with my being conscientious enough to take the time to find, and read, the old discussions so I could get an idea about what consensus was actually reached in prior discussions rather than blindly assuming I know exactly what was intended from looking at very little information? WP:CONS says "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia". Let's all try to continue this process of forming a new consensus without straying into arguments which begin to border on personal attacks. Sorry, maybe I could have said this better. I am annoyed that I have spent so much time here composing this reply, that could have been spent doing something more productive. This last point of mine may be premature; it's only intended as advice or maybe a warning, not as an attack. There should be some actual proposed change to the guideline text put up for a !vote, which supports the symbol × as the preferred method for describing array dimensions. I can't fault you for disrupting a consensus that doesn't yet formally exist, and I guess you're not the only editor here I can find fault with. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wiktionary lists thirteen meanings of the word (preposition) by, and the meaning we are discussing here is listed last. Yet somehow readers know the correct meaning from the context in which "by" is used. I think the same is true of both symbols "x" and "×". Wbm1058 (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Google Ngram Viewer

Take a look at this chart in the Google Ngram Viewer. It makes it pretty clear where the trend is headed. In another five or ten years this won't be controversial anymore. "4 by 4" can also refer to lumber used in construction. I'm guessing that use of that type of lumber became widespread in the years around World War I, the good old days when there was still lots of old-growth forest around. Houses were built more solidly back then, just my opinion. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Another example here, this one for VGA, another one that Makyen took retro at the beginning of this year. Again, the trend is clear. 1024 × 768 (XGA), Full HD (1080p), and Ultra high definition television 3,840×2,160. Sigh. The Google data needs updated. They only go to 2008. Try graphing other resolutions if you like. Warning, I've heard that this could be addictive. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)