Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:56, 10 July 2005

Dual measurements in articles

Several attempts have been made to add metric units Pan Am Flight 103 but they were repeatedly removed. They were removed even if the original data source is metric. They were removed even if put in parentheses after the non-metric units. The examples below illustrate some of the events in the edit history.

User Dan100 discussed the issue with those opposed to metric units. He managed to get agreement from those opposed to metric units that the total prohibition of metric units in the article would be reduced to a partial prohibition. If there are good reasons to remove metric units, then it would be useful to know which units can be removed and under what circumstances. I am not too worried if this is a squabble confined to one particular article, but the argument appeared to be about principles that apply to all Wikipedia articles.

Can we have a discussion on the benefits and circumstances of prohibiting metric units in Wikipedia articles? Bobblewik (talk) 4 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)

Example 1: Metric height/weight values for McKee

00:47, 28 Feb 2005 SlimVirgin 6' 5", 270-lb Non-metric only
18:58, 12 Mar 2005 Bobblewik -> 6 ft 5 in (1.96 m), 270 lb (122 kg) Dual
04:20, 3 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin -> 6 ft 5 ins, 270-lb Non-metric only
14:40, 9 Jun 2005 Bobblewik -> 6 ft 5 in (1.96 m), 270 lb (122 kg) Dual
03:19, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin -> 6 ft 5 ins, 270-lb Non-metric only
09:31, 12 Jun 2005 Gene Nygaard -> 6 ft 5 in, 270-lb (1.96 m, 120 kg) Dual
09:40, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin -> 6 ft 5 ins, 270-lb Non-metric only
01:03, 13 Jun 2005 Grace Note -> 6-ft 5-in, 270-lb Non-metric only

Example 2: Metric estimates of explosive weight

07:23, 21 Nov 2003 WhisperToMe 312 gram Metric only
06:38, 10 Nov 2004 SlimVirgin -> between 10 and 14 ounces Non-metric only
19:57, 11 Nov 2004 AlanBarrett -> 10-14 ounces (280g to 400 g) Dual
18:02, 6 Jan 2005 SlimVirgin -> 10-14 ozs. (280g to 400 g) Dual
07:30, 1 Feb 2005 Telso -> 10-14 oz. (280g to 400 g) Dual
00:47, 28 Feb 2005 SlimVirgin -> around 14 oz. Non-metric only
00:47, 28 Feb 2005 SlimVirgin 450 grams Second instance of weight value. Metric only (source: UK official DERA data). Article now has mismatching values: metric only and non-metric only
18:58, 12 Mar 2005 Bobblewik around 14 oz.-> 450 grams (16 oz) Dual. Both values consistent with UK official value
22:24, 24 May 2005 SlimVirgin 450 grams (16 oz) -> 10-16 ounces One of two instances. Non-metric only. Mismatch between instances re-introduced
06:47, 3 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin 450 grams -> 14 ozs. One of two instances. Non-metric only
07:13, 3 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin 14 ozs. -> 450 grams Self revert. Metric value reappears
07:25, 3 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin 450 grams -> 14 ozs. Non-metric only
14:40, 9 Jun 2005 Bobblewik 10-16 ozs and 14 ozs. -> 450 g (16 oz) Made consistent with UK official value. Dual. Two values in article now match
03:19, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin 450 g (16 oz) -> 10-16 ozs (first value), 450 g (16 oz) -> about 14 ozs. (second value) Article now has two different weight values. Non-metric only
08:46, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin 10-16 ozs -> 12-16 ozs (first value) Revision of value
09:31, 12 Jun 2005 Gene Nygaard -> 12–16 oz (0.3–0.5 kg) (first value), -> about 400 g (14 oz) (second value) Dual.
09:40, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin -> 12-16 ozs (first value), about 14 ozs. (second value). Non-metric only
17:29, 12 Jun 2005 Gene Nygaard -> about 400 g (14 oz) (second value). Dual
19:08, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin -> between 12 and 16 ounces (second value). Non-metric only

Addition:

01:03, 13 Jun 2005 Grace Note -> between 12 and 16 oz (second value). Non-metric only

Example 3: Metric container size

00:47, 28 Feb 2005 SlimVirgin 5' x 5' x 5'
18:58, 12 Mar 2005 Bobblewik -> 5 by 5 by 5 ft (1.5 by 1.5 by 1.5 m) Dual
05:49, 3 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin -> 5ft³. Non-metric only
14:40, 9 Jun 2005 Bobblewik -> 4.2 cubic metre (148 ft³) Dual (source: actual AVE container size)
09:06, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin -> 5ft³. Non-metric only
09:36, 12 Jun 2005 Gene Nygaard -> 5 ft³ (140 L). Dual
09:40, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin -> 5ft³. Non-metric only
17:22, 12 Jun 2005 Gene Nygaard -> 125 ft³ (3.5 m³). Dual
17:40, 12 Jun 2005 Bobblewik -> 4.2 cubic metre (148 ft³) Dual
07:03, 13 Jun 2005 Grace Note -> 148 cubic ftNon-metric only

Example 4: Metric wind speed

03:02, 1 Mar 2005 SlimVirgin 100 miles per hour Non-metric only
18:58, 12 Mar 2005 Bobblewik -> 100 miles per hour (160 km/h) Dual
22:24, 24 May 2005 SlimVirgin -> 100 miles per hour Non-metric only
14:40, 9 Jun 2005 Bobblewik -> 90 knots (170 km/h) Dual (source: UK official accident investigation data)
03:19, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin -> 100 mph Non-metric only
09:31, 12 Jun 2005 Gene Nygaard -> 100 miles per hour (160 km/h) Dual
09:40, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin -> 100 mph Non-metric only
17:54, 12 Jun 2005 Bobblewik -> up to 100 knots (190 km/h) Dual (source: UK official accident investigation data)
18:40, 12 Jun 2005 Mel Etitis -> up to 100 s Non-metric only
19:08, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin -> of 100 s Non-metric only

Example 5: Metric length of debris spread

01:53, 5 Nov 2004 Slimv 180 miles Non-metric only
23:25, 8 Nov 2004 SlimVirgin 130 kms Metric only
22:52, 11 Nov 2004 SlimVirgin 88-mile (142-km) Dual
00:47, 28 Feb 2005 SlimVirgin -> 88-mile Non-metric only
18:58, 12 Mar 2005 Bobblewik 88-mile -> 88 mile (142 km) Dual
22:24, 24 May 2005 SlimVirgin -> 88-mile Non-metric only
14:40, 9 Jun 2005 Bobblewik 88-mile -> 88 mile (142 km) Dual

03:19, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin -> 88-mile Non-metric only
09:31, 12 Jun 2005 Gene Nygaard -> 88-statute-mile (142 km) Dual
09:40, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin -> 88-mile Non-metric only
18:09, 12 Jun 2005 Bobblewik -> 130 km Metric only (source: UK official accident investigation data)
18:34, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin -> 88-mile Non-metric only
18:40, 12 Jun 2005 Mel Etitis -> 81 miles Non-metric only
19:08, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin -> 88-mile Non-metric only

Example 6: Metric fragment size

22:52, 11 Nov 2004 SlimVirgin 0.4 inch (10 millimeter) Dual
07:25, 3 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin 0.4 inch Non-metric only
14:40, 9 Jun 2005 Bobblewik -> 0.4 inch (10 mm) Dual
03:19, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin -> 0.4 inch Non-metric only
09:37, 12 Jun 2005 Gene Nygaard -> 10 millimeter (0.4 inch) Dual
09:40, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin -> 0.4 inch Non-metric only

Example 7: Metric temperature

08:46, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin minus 50 F Non-metric only
09:31, 12 Jun 2005 Gene Nygaard -> minus 50 °F (−45 °C) Dual
09:40, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin -> minus 50 °F Non-metric only
17:27, 12 Jun 2005 Gene Nygaard -> 50 °F (−45 °C) Dual
07:03, 13 Jun 2005 Grace Note -> minus 50 °F Non-metric only

Example 8: Distance of explosive from container

Added by Gene Nygaard 4 July 2005 19:25 (UTC). Should this one be treated differently?

00:47, 28 Feb 2005 SlimVirgin 200 millimeters Metric only
06:47, 3 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin 200 mms Metric only
14:40, 9 Jun 2005 Bobblewik 200 mm Metric only
03:19, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin 200 mms Metric only
09:31, 12 Jun 2005 Gene Nygaard 200 mm Metric only

Example 9: "Miles" to an air traffic controller

Added by Gene Nygaard 4 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)

08:46, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin a mile of airspace Non-metric only
09:31, 12 Jun 2005 Gene Nygaard a nautical mile of airspace Non-metric only
09:40, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin a mile of airspace Non-metric only
23:48, 12 Jun 2005 SlimVirgin one mile of airspace Non-metric only

Comments

I see no reason that both systems can't be used. Maurreen 4 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)

I find the argument absurd. I would go so far as to say that we should require both systems. The argument that it disturbs the "flow" of the text is ridiculous. It doesn't matter how easily I can read the text if I cannot understand the meaning of it because I don't use the particular measurement system. Rmhermen July 4, 2005 15:28 (UTC)

Many if not most people who learn English as a second language are not familiar with Imperial units. They may have some rough ideas of miles, feet, or pounds. Ounces, degrees Fahrenheit, or ft³, however, tend to be completely foreign concepts. These readers need SI units to understand the content, and I can't see why each of them should have to convert them individually. Being confronted with unfamiliar units disturbs the reading flow a lot more than having both units in the text. I find prohibiting converted units completely unacceptable. (The argument cuts both ways, of course, but in the case at hand it's metric units that are being pushed out.) Rl 4 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

Is there any ground for the claim that people who learn English as a second language are ignorant of non-metric measurements? I find it highly dubious; whether they read literature or newspapers, watch Hollywood films or television news, they'll come across such measurements all the time. Besides, there are dictionaries aren't there? Wikipedia is full of articles that use only one or the other system; in this case, a couple of very insistent (and aggressive, to say the least) editors, including Bobblewik, tried to force a number of changes on the article, this being just one of them (Rl was briefly involved in the argument). I can see no good reason for insisting that articles use both systems. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 4 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

The provision of dual units is important. Outside the USA, there is a large number of English speakers who are not acquainted with the Imperial units or though they may be aware of them do not use them and do not therefore conceive them in space. The UK government is pushing for universal access to the Internet for school-age children, they will have been brough up on the metric units and their acquaintnace with the Avoirdupoid system will be through their parents. Bi lingual Europeans accustomed to the metric using the english wiki because their own language version is absent will equally be discomfitted. The provision of dual values breaks the flow of the reading less than getting a calculator or dictionary and converting the values mid stream. Any block of text that cannot handle the metric with the "Imperial" in brackets or alongside is fundamentally flawed. The same goes the other way. We should not complain if the metric is accompanied by the Imperial. GraemeLeggett 4 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)

Ditto this, Maurreen, Rmhermen and Rl. Let's worry about Bobblewik's other "pushing" elsewhere. Tomer ^TALK July 4, 2005 17:32 (UTC)

Bobblewik and one other editor reduced the PA 103 talk page to a toxic wasteland with this nonsense, which tends to happen when single-issue editors turn up on pages they don't otherwise contribute to with demands for conformity to whatever it is they're trying to push. The fact is that most non-metric units are understood by most people in most countries: feet and miles, for example. As much as people like Bobblewik think the UK is metric, it isn't in practise: most people I know do use and think in terms of feet, miles, and pounds. It's the same in Canada, and so far as I know, also in Australia and New Zealand. Bobblewik has gone around changing measurements like "a 200-acre estate" to "an estate of 200 acres (800,000 sq metres)", reverting for months on end if necessary to push his version across, while making no other contributions to the encyclopedia. It's bad writing, inconsiderate editing, and totally unnecessary. The MoS is not policy; it's a guideline, and even as a guideline, it makes clear that metric units do not have to be added to non-science articles. Bobblewik is trying to introduce a policy by stealth here. Some consideration has to be made to the quality of writing in articles, given that we want people to read them. Where you have a sentence (as some in PA 103 did) containing several measurements, and each measurement is doubled up, the sentence becomes practically unreadable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 4, 2005 18:15 (UTC)

One final, important, point: Bobblewik is trying to turn the conversation on its head. No one on the PA 103 page suggested prohibiting metric units - quite the reverse. We said that it was up to the editors on the page how the issue was dealt with, as it ought to be, and this is consistent with the language of the MoS. It is Bobblewik who is trying to take it out of the hands of the people who are actually writing the articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 4, 2005 18:21 (UTC)

I've changed the headers to remove the word "prohibition" because this is just another attempt to be manipulative. No one has suggested prohibiting doubling up if the editors on the page want it. There is no policy for or against the provision of metric units where imperial is used, or the provision of imperial where metric is used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 4, 2005 18:28 (UTC)

Bobblewik is an editor of that particular article. I am an editor of that particular article. Dan100 is an editor of that particular article. It was the owner who decided that there would be no dual units in this article, and who with the help of others also tried to maintain a fiction that the tons used in that article are not metric tons. Gene Nygaard 4 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)

Hello Gene, what a nice surprise to see you here. ;-) Dan100 suggested a compromise, which I'm sure would have been accepted by everyone (and still is likely to be: I'm certainly happy with it), except that you kept harping on about what the word "ton" means. Anyway, we only just managed to stop it at PA 103 and I'm not going to start it up here again. I can only repeat that the MoS is not policy, and even if it were, it would not support Bobblewik's attempt to force people to include metric units in every single article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 4, 2005 19:15 (UTC)

Owner of the article? No-one owns the article, nor has anyone asserted ownership of it. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)

You and I each accepted different versions of what Dan100 proposed as compromises, both of which would have included some dual measurements. Gene Nygaard 4 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)

It is my opinion that SI units are always in order. This is not only the International System of Units, but equally importantly, it is an interdisciplinary system of units. There is no reason why anyone should have to learn a whole new system of measurements to understand the jargon of any particular field, or an article dealing with any particular country—and especially not when reading about an international incident involving people from around thirty countries, as in the Pan Am Flight 103.

Widespread use in a particular location, or in a particular field of activity, can serve as good justification for including those units, but not for excluding SI units. Gene Nygaard 4 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)

I prefer the term metric to SI, the two are not interchangeable, some days cm are preferable to metres, the latter being the SI unit.GraemeLeggett 4 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

Sure, the SI is only a subset of the "metric system". But your example is wrong; centimeters certainly are SI (though 9.45×10¹⁴ cm is not SI). Any time non-SI metric units (such as calories, kilograms-force, curies, rads, and the like), dual measurements including SI equivalents or measurements in only SI units are appropriate; it doesn't matter whether your original Fred Flintstone units are English, or Russian, or obsolete metric, or whatever, the SI values are always appropriate. Gene Nygaard 4 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that those trying to prohibit the addition of metric units vastly overestimate the knowledge of imperial units by people who learned English as a second language. I offer to conduct an informal survey among such people if you care for a small sample of empirical data. I can tell you right now, though, that feet, pounds, and miles are among the very few imperial units that most people will have some rough idea of. You may be lucky with yards and inches. You won't have such luck for degrees Fahrenheit, ounces, quarts, gallons, or acres, not to mention exotic ones like furlongs or stones.

Also, you are ignoring that precision matters. A rough knowledge may help you estimate a number, but you are still lost if you want some precision: For room temperatures, one or two degrees do matter. For the top speed of a car, 10% make a difference. And most people do care whether someone is 5' 5" or 5' 7".

Also, I'm afraid I find the exposure argument somewhat disingenuous given that at least the same portion of the population in English speaking countries have been exposed to metric units, so the same argument could very well be made to convert everything to metric units.

I changed the header back to what it was because it describes the case quite clearly: Some editors prohibited the use of metric units in what they apparently consider "their article". Rl 4 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)

Please don't use headers to make personal attacks, which is what I see this as. No one tried to "prohibit" anything. The editors on the page did not support Bobblewik. These included Jayjg, Mel Etitis, El C, Grace Note, Felonious Monk, Dan100, and myself. Dan100 suggested a compromise, which fitted with the point you made, RI, that those units not understood by many people (e.g. ounces) would be doubled up. This was accepted; end of story. This is how disputes are normally worked out. People seek compromise, not a rigid adherence to their own POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 4, 2005 19:23 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment about conversions making the article difficult to read - however, an informal survey in my Canadian household shows that none of 3 (all college-educated) were sure whether a km or a mile was bigger. One was born before the conversion (& so quite familiar with miles), 2 born after conversion (& the only familiarity with miles was on dual speedometer on autos - but they still were unsure -- & even incorrect) --JimWae 2005 July 4 19:26 (UTC)

Sorry, Jim. An edit conflict or glitch led to the Comment section being trebled, and in deleting two of them, I deleted your comment too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 4, 2005 19:40 (UTC)

Jim, what would hang on the members of your household not knowing whether a mile was larger than a km if they were reading, as an example, the PA 103 article? It isn't a science article, whereby people would want to know very precise measurements. Also, in aviation, certain measurement units are standard throughout the world. Altitude is measured in feet, for example, and this was the convention I used, because the pilot (American ) and air traffic controller (Scottish) had used it. Perhaps, as an experiment, you could ask those members of your household to read PA 103 (or maybe just the intro, as it's quite long), and to say honestly whether the lack of metric conversion detracted from their reading experience; and if it did, whether there were any particular measurements that caused a problem, and if so, which ones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 4, 2005 19:46 (UTC)

I saw what had happened; no biggie, Slim. I agree dual measurements in the lead section could be especially distracting. The younger ones in my family would have trouble with ounces (they'd probably think of a juice box), probably 90% of people have no idea how fast a knot is (I almost wrote "what size"), similarly with square miles. Someone suggested minimizing numbers in the entire lead. 845 sq mi is larger than the 5 boroughs of NYC (are dimensions given later?). The volume of the explosives (likely of greater interest in terms of security) would have been about the size of a pen, maybe? I'd move the crater photo up - I keep thinking this is the one that fell in the water (local BC guy was found not guilty of that) - clarifies event was (almost?) entirely over land - existing top photo, at first glance, does not preclude being after recovery from water. I have no intention of getting involved in editing this - I have no background knowledge in it anyway, so I will just leave some suggestions --JimWae 2005 July 5 07:37 (UTC)

Your claim that "in aviation, certain measurement units are standard throughout the world" is patently false. There is almost nothing in aviation that is not done in different units in some parts of the world. Some places, for example, do measure altitude in meters. The international standard in aviation weather reports for wind speed is meters per second, but many countries use knots, and some use kilometers per hour.

However, this does illustrate quite well another of the reasons why including dual measurments when English units are used is of great value:

It is ludicrous to expect someone with only a fleeting familiarity, at best, with "miles" to understand in which cases a "mile" is going to mean 1.61 km, and in which cases a "mile" is going to mean 1.85 km.
That's especially true when SlimVirgin, who thinks she does know miles, doesn't know this.
Just WTF do you suppose "mile" means to an air traffic controller? What was the "mile" used by air traffic controller Alan Topp? You don't really know beans about what is "standard" in the aviation field, do you ? See #Example 9: "Miles" to an air traffic controller which I have added above. Gene Nygaard 4 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)

I think that the Pan Am Flight 103 article would be better with metric conversions. Part of the problem may be that the opening paragraph contains a number of measurements so any attempt to provide metric conversions breaks up the opening a little. So perhaps a rewrite that moved the measurements into the body of the article as well as adding the conversions would prove acceptable to all sides? It's certainly not worth edit warring over. Gdr 4 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)

SlimVirgin made some comment up some while back that in New Zealand (and Austalia, Canada and UK), while we are taught metric we are practically imperial; well I assure everyone that New Zealand, or at least myself and the people around me, is completely metric and imperial units are almost never used. Through general knowledge, some people will know some things - a mile is about 1.6 km, an inch about 2.5 cm. If I encountered imperial units in an article, this would mean having to convert them to metric, even if I can do the conversion in my head. Altitude measurements that I hear a generally in metres. I don't know about those around me, but I have no idea how much an ounce is.

My personal opinion as someone who just found out that such a debate existed is that, in this particular case, both types should be stated: imperial because the article is primarily about something American (I assume) and metric because that's what the rest of the world uses.

(btw, I haven't actually read the article in question - or skimmed it for that matter - so if some comments are irrelevant, just ignore them. I assume the debate is over imperial vs. both stated in the article.) Neonumbers 5 July 2005 08:15 (UTC)

This is the MoS guideline

I'd say that before Bobblewik and Gene succeed in turning this into another trolling episode, we should decide what the point of this discussion is. The MoS is clear: there is no requirement to double up. The status of the MoS is also clear: it is a guideline, not a policy, so even if it did recommend doubling up, it would still not be a requirement.

Therefore, what exactly is to be achieved by having this discussion? SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 4, 2005 19:30 (UTC)

Good grief!. This is that "MoS guideline" you claim to be clear. This is the talk page for that guideline. This is where what that guideline is, and exactly what it means, is supposed to be discussed. Gene Nygaard 4 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)

Don't start your aggression again here, please. That was the point of my question. (a) Is Bobblewik aiming to change what the MoS says, and if so, to what? and (b) Does he realize the MoS isn't policy, so that, if he does succeed in changing it, doubling up will still not be required?

And also (c) as a matter of interest, does Bobblewik go around adding imperial conversions to metric ones where he finds only the latter? SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 4, 2005 19:50 (UTC)

No, but he won't stop anyone from doing so. Which is all we ask in return.

This discussion is not about whether we have to use metric or dual units, but whether those who are not familiar with imperial units have some right to add them where they consider them useful. The point of this discussion is to find out whether native users of imperial units can prohibit the use of metric units in "their articles" because they think imperial units are good enough for everyone. You can claim to be offended all you want, fact is that you want to remove information that many other people find useful or important. Rl 4 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)

Then we're in agreement. The MoS says that metric conversions may be added, but don't have to be, which is what you seem to be saying too. It will be up to the editors on the page. No one prohibits the addition of conversions, just as no one can prohibit another editor from removing those conversions, which is why I keep saying that prohibit is the wrong word. Like most content issues, it is up to the editors on the page to reach consensus and compromise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 4, 2005 20:08 (UTC)

Yes and no. I mostly agree with what you said, but the problem I am seeing (and today's discussion was a perfect demonstration) is that editors who are not aware of the problems posed by imperial units to people who are not familiar with them agree among themselves that metric units are unnecessary and that they should be removed. The vast majority of non-native speakers, however, are highly unlikely to take part in our discussions, and they depend on our considering their needs as well. Rl 4 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)

The point of an encyclopedia is to supply information to the reader. If an editor adds correct, relevant, NPOV information to an article, the preceding editors should not delete it, just because they do not like it. This goes for any information, including conversions to other units. Let's stop senseless revert wars. &−Woodstone July 4, 2005 20:43 (UTC)

Editing encompasses other issues as well; style issues, whether the information is trivial, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)

Seen the vehement discussions above, we can safely say that converted units are not trivial information. If only one unit is given either way, a large proportion of the readership will be hampered in reading. This would override any considerations of perhaps some loss in stylish conciseness. −Woodstone July 5, 2005 19:34 (UTC)

"we can safely say that converted units are not trivial information" -- Can we? In one case, an editor wants us to specify which kind of ton a country's leader was using when he gave a round figure for an amount of explosive. It's clear to anyone who gives it a moment's thought that it doesn't matter which kind of ton he meant because he was not giving an accurate account. It's rather like insisting that if a person says "you're a million miles from the truth", we must make it clear that they meant the ordinary, everyday miles and not nautical miles (and I wouldn't put it past the editor in question to make such a demand, if he thought he could upset someone by doing so). This ignores the serious question that research into which unit a person means by what they say is not permitted in Wikipedia: we just repeat what they are reported to have said. If a newspaper were to report Mr Blair, say, as saying that he and Mr Brown were "kilometres apart", we are not entitled to correct the source to "miles apart" just because we know Mr Blair is British and does not use kilometres. -- Grace Note, 6 July, about 2.15 AEST (UTC+10)

Can you say straw man arguments? Should any of the problems you just made up ever occur, let me know and I will be sure to help out. In the vast majority of disputes I have seen, the information contained in converted units was non-trivial. Rl 6 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)

The fact that this is merely a guideline does not give an editor reason to act against it or revert changes made to suit it. We call it a guideline because, unlike neutrality, editors that do not follow should not be reprimanded - they should not have to know every detail of this before they write an article. If something doesn't follow, someone else comes to change it, and no-one will revert such a change because changes to conform to style are almost always for the better.

And even if the style doesn't mandate the use of both units (which, in my opinion, it should where measurements are numeric), the same goes for any edit that poses no harm: do not revert. The addition of metric units would break the flow of the sentence unless we're not talking about a specific measurement (e.g. "they were miles apart"). The addition of them shouldn't be reverted, because it doesn't change things for the worse. Neonumbers 7 July 2005 10:52 (UTC)

Non-base ten numbers

We currently do not have a guideline on how to write numbers that are not decimal (base 10), but hexadecimal (16), octal (8) or binary (2), to name the most frequent different bases. Do we need one? If so, which style?

I am using 0x00 for hexdecimal code points in general, but have also seen most of x00, h00 or 00h, $00, #00, HEX00 or hex00 and 00₁₆ or ₁₆00 in Wikipedia. (Luckily not in articles I edited so far.) Subscript indices are certainly the most flexible solution, but also the most cumbersome to write, second is HEX, DEC, OCT, BIN (upper, lower or caps case) and h, d, o, b, which do not pose a problem when copied to plain text.

I usually use uppercase letters A–F (10–15) for the additional hexadecimal digits and would also use these with other bases larger than ten, if I needed to, although duodecimal (base 12) also commonly uses X (10) and # (11). Christoph Päper 8 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)

When I expanded the base (mathematics) article a while back, I used the 123₈ style because I needed that flexibility, and because it was the only non-computer way I knew. A style for that wouldn't be a bad idea - what do you think it should be? (Maybe different contexts call for different notations?) Neonumbers 8 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)

0x prefixing is "C notation". It is fairly widely used in programming languages that are (or were originally) built on C, like Perl, Python, and Java, and is often adopted in more general texts. I've used it myself in prose, but also made sure to add a note explaining the convention. Other times I just put something like "2C (hex)". Subscripts seem to be the preferred format in mathematical formulas, from what I remember reading, and I've seen them in prose, but when they appear in prose or in tables (like character code charts), it's terribly distracting, especially if it is used more than once. Someone recently tried to use a subscripted "HEX" on a bunch of code value ranges in one article I watch, and it looked horrible. Even if the subscripts were made extra small, I don't think they should be recommended in prose, ever. — mjb 8 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)

What I had in mind was, in articles about programming etc., use C notation, and in all other articles, use that subscript notation that you (mjb) advise against; but in articles that use lots of only one type of number, just say so at the beginning of the article and let that be the only notice for that article. Same goes for sections and tables. Neonumbers 9 July 2005 12:17 (UTC)

Unit Disagreement, MiB vs. MB

Discussion moved from the Village Pump - Omegatron 23:05, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

What unit types should be used when describing storage capacity in articles?

Multiple-byte units

Decimal
Value	Metric
1000	kB	kilobyte
1000²	MB	megabyte
1000³	GB	gigabyte
1000⁴	TB	terabyte
1000⁵	PB	petabyte
1000⁶	EB	exabyte
1000⁷	ZB	zettabyte
1000⁸	YB	yottabyte
1000⁹	RB	ronnabyte
1000¹⁰	QB	quettabyte

Binary
Value	IEC		Memory
1024	KiB	kibibyte	KB	kilobyte
1024²	MiB	mebibyte	MB	megabyte
1024³	GiB	gibibyte	GB	gigabyte
1024⁴	TiB	tebibyte	TB	terabyte
1024⁵	PiB	pebibyte	—
1024⁶	EiB	exbibyte	—
1024⁷	ZiB	zebibyte	—
1024⁸	YiB	yobibyte	—
—
—

Orders of magnitude of data

A problem has arisen in different related articles on whether to use the MB or MiB. Some articles have decided to stick with using MB, some have chosen to use MiB.

Talk:PlayStation_3#Memory_prefixes

Talk:Xbox_360#Mib_v._MB

What is the difference?

MB uses the SI decimal (base ten) system, but computers use 1 or 0, a binary (base two) system. Binary 2^10 (1024) is almost equal to the decimal 10^3 (1 000) so early on 1024 bytes was referred to as a kilobyte. This is only a 2.4% difference; however at larger scales, such as exabytes, the difference is near 20%. Depending on what computer component is being talked about MB may mean 1,000,000 bytes or 1,048,576 bytes.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

http://www.iec.ch/zone/si/si_bytes.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte

Argument in favor of KB, MB, GB.

Manufacturers usually post system specifications using these terms.
These terms are generally understood by computer professionals as to what MB is being used.
Consumers are more familiar with MB and would be confused by other terms.

Argument if favor of KiB, MiB, GiB.

MiB is a recognized standard and technically the correct term to use.
MiB can reduce confusion as it explicitly states whether binary or decimal capacities are being discussed.
MiB is gaining more acceptance and over time will be a more familiar term.

The above is brought to us by User:Thax, who forgot to sign.

Personally, I prefer to use the more familiar MB (NIST be damned :-). That said, you might consider using the approach often used with the also ambiguous billion, which would be to add (10⁶ bytes) or (2²⁰ bytes) following the first usage depending on which is intended. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 22:02 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy response. Do you think that it would be something worth putting to a vote? Do you think enough people even care about this issue? --Thax 8 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)

No, nobody cares, and anyway the result would be that we should go with MB but change things when (and IF) MiB becomes more common. Until I saw this writeup I didn't even KNOW this MiB existed. That is a significant thing, considering I've been downloading from the internet since 1996. But let's look at the figures shall we? Googles I mean, of course... :)

MB: 86,300,000 >> MiB: 2,580,000
KB: 60,700,000 >>> KiB: 1,070,000
GB: 37,900,000 >>> GiB: 1,140,000

Looks like the i loses. By at least a whole digit or more. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 8 July 2005 08:15 (UTC)

The only reason anyone might care is if they already know the difference. What is important is reporting the actual capacity accurately, and where necessary pointing out whether the manufacturer's labelling is inaccurate and/or misleading. The best idea would likely be to quote the manufacturer's specifications exactly and annotate this with a more accurate figure if you have it to hand.
A big reason for confusion is that sometimes the decimal and binary multipliers are mixed up: an example would be mis-stating a megabyte as 1,000 kilobytes: if you then move onward towards gigabytes the error can be compounded. Trying to determine how many bytes a given storage device might be capable of storing can be an exercise in frustration.
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk July 8, 2005 09:27 (UTC)

Note that SI symbols are case sensitive. Prefixes up to 'k' are lower case. Prefixes for 'M' and beyond are UPPER CASE. Thus 'kB' not 'KB'. Similarly, 'km' and 'kg', not 'Km' and 'Kg'. Bobblewik (talk) 8 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)

"No, nobody cares"

Oh yes we do. ;-)

Standards and accuracy are more important than tradition. We aren't going to start using feet instead of meters just because it gets more Google hits.

I say we use the IEC prefixes, and when using the SI prefixes, it should be mentioned which way they are being used, since they are ambiguous.

Related policies: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Style for numbers.2C weights.2C and measures - Omegatron July 8, 2005 13:05 (UTC)

Good point about caring. I care too. Note that SI prefixes are not ambiguous. SI is just about the only thing in the world of units that we all agree has just one meaning. Our uncertainty when reading memory size specifications is not due to ambiguity in SI. It is due to some people to using prefixes incorrectly. Bobblewik (talk) 8 July 2005 13:34 (UTC)

Correction, accuracy is more important than both tradition and standards. However, I don't think this is something that needs to be decided as a policy one way or the other. Nine point nine times out of ten, "kilobyte" will be used with the binary meaning, and this is well enough established that confusion is unlikely. On the other hand, there's no point in going around changing articles that use "kibibyte", since those who have never heard of it can simply look it up in the nearest available encyclopedia. :)

If there is to be a policy, I suggest that it's the same one as with US/UK spelling: be consistent within an article, but respect the original author's choice, and don't change an entire article just for the sake of changing. Only if there is a real risk of confusion (as with words meaning different things in the US/UK), is an explicit definition needed. – Smyth\^talk 8 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)

Ehhhhhhh.

It's not the same as spelling. Everyone knows that center = centre. Not everyone knows that a CD MB (1,048,576) and a DVD MB (1,000,000) are different.

I agree that accuracy > standards > tradition. Standards and accuracy go hand-in-hand, though.

~~I would much prefer "unless otherwise noted, kB in the Wikipedia means 1000 bytes",~~ but if you want to go through and add "(decimal meaning)"/"(binary meaning)" after every instance of the word "KB" to maintain accuracy, go for it. - Omegatron July 8, 2005 14:21 (UTC)

Omegatron, that's not very realistic. - Omegatron

A CD MB and a DVD MB are the same. If you're comparing the capacities of the discs directly then you have to use one or the other. It's just that the discs differ in which one is traditionally used to give capacities. As for "unless otherwise noted, kB in the Wikipedia means 1000 bytes", well that is surely a false statement right now, and would require a vast amount of work to make it true, and a continuous patrol to correct those who weren't aware of it. – Smyth\^talk 8 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)

The main problem that I noticed isn't due to the number of articles that use one term or the other, but rather the unit disagreement on related articles managed by different people. For example in the PS3 page the talk decision was made to use MiB, but on the xbox 360 page the decision was made to use MB. For every new page that someone may want to convert to the technically correct term there needs to be a large discussion started on the merits and pitfalls of using one unit or the other. Making the decision on one location would help speed up this process and bring consistancy to related articles. --Thax 8 July 2005 16:05 (UTC)

Well I've already put my two cents in on the PlayStation 3 talk page. I think it's fallacy to say "stick with tradition until more people start using correct terms" because by that line of reasoning, we'll be incorrectly applying SI prefixes for decades to come. Why not start now? Most readers will simply ignore the 'i' in 'KiB', 'MiB', etc and read 'KB' and 'MB', respectively. Those that do notice the difference enough to wonder what it means can click the wikilink and, *gasp* learn something new (whenever I use IEC binary prefixes, I link their first instance to the article explaining their usage). I've obviously made a fuss about keeping IEC binary prefixes on some pages I watch, but only because I really believe we should all be moving towards the technically correct prefixes now that they are standardized, and what better place to start than an encyclopedia? -- uberpenguin July 8, 2005 15:13 (UTC)

It seems logical to me that if MiB is here to stay in some articles, since it is the technically correct term to use it would not be possible to make a policy decision to choose MB or MiB on all cases. For example there may be articles where the capacities discussion is very importance and needs to use MiB and MB to be specific.

Therefore it seems to me that there are the following choices:

1. The use of MiB is required in all articles.

2. The use of MiB is recommended in all articles.

3. The use of MiB or MB should be decided on a page by page basis. (No policy)--Thax 8 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)

It seems that what got this whole discussion started in the first place is that many people object to changing MB to MiB in existing articles, on the grounds that it's too obscure. They have a point. However, if, as you say, the exact capacity is important and there's any chance of confusion, then MiB is probably preferable. This does not mean that MB would then be declared to always mean 10^6. The decimal meaning is so rare that its use should always be explicitly declared. – Smyth\^talk 8 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think that the MB should be declared to always mean 10^6, that would be wrong. The main point of the policy decision would allow people to fix related articles to use the same units without needing to duke it out in the discussion page. My guess would be that the decimal meaning happens about 50% of the time, for example Hard Drives use the decimal meaning, while memory uses the binary meaning.--Thax 8 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

That's all well and good but it still doesn't address what should happen when some editor changes correct MiB references to MB due to personal preference, and other authors (such as myself) wish to leave the references with the binary prefixes for their own valid reasons. Should this just go on being resolved on a case-by-case basis. If so this will surely continue to come up until eventually a heated argument will cause some case to go to arbitration when two parties can't reach an agreement. I thought it would be nice to try and at least set some loose guidelines on the usage of the SI vs IEC binary prefixes for data capacities... -- uberpenguin July 8, 2005 17:15 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. Personally I think that MiB should be a recommended option, this approach seems to work best for all parties involved.

The use of the binary prefixes, such as MiB, shall be preferred over ambiguous SI decimal references. The use of the new binary prefix standards are not required but are recommended for use on all articles where binary capacities are used. If a contributor changes an article with a binary capacity reference to use the more accurate binary system, that change should be accepted over an ambiguous application of the SI decimal system.

Does this sit well with everyone, or do we need to put this to a vote?--Thax 8 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Instead of voting, someone start a proposed policy page, stick a {{proposed}} tag on it, start linking to it every time you change a unit, and it will evolve until we get a consensus and it becomes a guideline.

I don't see what's wrong with linking every instance of MiB. It's not terribly distracting. - Omegatron July 8, 2005 19:23 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. – Smyth\^talk 8 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

I may just be out in left field on this, but I would rather not be in the position of saying that MiB is "preferred". I would rather distinguish between cases where the technical distinction is important and cases where the usage is incidental. For example, an article of CD-ROM format specifications, were such to exist, clearly cares about MiB vs. MB. Whereas an article on computer simulated cosmology doesn't really care whether the simulation occupied 1 TB or 1 TiB. The latter, even if technically correct, distracts from the flow by presenting a term unfamiliar to most English readers in a context where it is basically irrelevant. Also, this doesn't address what to do with storage capacities that really are 10⁶ bytes. Obviously we can't define 1 MB = 10⁶ bytes since the real world doesn't consistently use it that way. So, should we start talking about 0.96 MiB? And what about the even more awful 1,024,000 bytes?

I would propose instead a guideline to read something like the following:

In most circustances, the common english designations kB, MB, GB, etc. should be preferred if the precise specification is unknown or is largely irrelevant to the reader's understanding the article.
- Examples include:
  1. The capacity of a particular computer model when used in articles only incidentally mentioning that model's result.
  2. Estimates of the amount of information collected by the spy satellites each day.
In cases where the precise specifications are known, but are likely to be of interest to only a few readers, rather than most, editors are encouraged to parenthetically write out the intended meaning the first time it is used: e.g. "4 MB (4*10⁶ bytes)" or "4 MB (4*2²⁰ bytes)" or "4 MB (4,096,000 bytes)". In this case, it may also be appropriate to write "4 MiB (4*2²⁰ bytes)", if the device's storage capacity is routinely expressed as a multiple of a binary power.
- Examples include:
  1. The storage capacity of most consumer electronic devices, unless data storage is a major part of the discussion.
  2. The size of most software packages.
Lastly, technical articles, where the precise number of bytes is likely to be of interest to most readers, are encouraged to use KiB, MiB, GiB, etc. throughout.
- Examples include:
  1. Detailed discussions of storage formats or compression algorithms.
  2. Discussions of devices focusing on storage capacity or comparing storage capacity between many similar devices.

I don't expect that everyone will agree with this, but this summarizes how I would want to approach the problem. Dragons flight July 8, 2005 21:27 (UTC)

I like it. – Smyth\^talk 8 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)

What's wrong with listing something as MB or MiB? If you want to know what the value is, follow the link. The link should make things clear, right? Vegaswikian 8 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

MiB is always clear, but MB never is since industry groups use it interchangably to mean either 1,000,000 bytes, 2^20 = 1,048,576 bytes, or 1,024,000 bytes. Dragons flight July 8, 2005 22:11 (UTC)

Okay I tried to summarize everyones ideas and viewpoints the best I could at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Binary unit prefixes. Please tweak it as required. If it is in the wrong place please move it, I am a newb and just trying my best at doing the right thing. What should we do with this discussion, is it bad etiquette to copy and paste everyones comments to a different location? --Thax 20:02, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok to move discussions; especially from the Village Pump, where they will be archived (effectively deleted) after a short time period.

I moved it here. - Omegatron 23:05, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Such changes are meant to get consensus before being published on a project page, that means voting unless clearly everyone in the discussion is thinking exactly the same thing. I didn't really see much of a consensus there; correct me if I'm wrong. So if there isn't one clear consensus (or it is evident that consensus will never be reached), that section shouldn't be there at all - yet. Neonumbers 10:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 345: / Line 345: @@
 :It is ok to move discussions; especially from the Village Pump, where they will be archived (effectively deleted) after a short time period.
 :I moved it here. - [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] 23:05, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
+::Such changes are meant to get consensus before being published on a project page, that means voting unless clearly everyone in the discussion is thinking exactly the same thing.  I didn't really see much of a consensus there; correct me if I'm wrong.  So if there isn't one clear consensus (or it is evident that consensus will never be reached), that section shouldn't be there at all - yet.  [[User:Neonumbers|Neonumbers]] 10:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)