* To all: I would like to include some illustrative examples, but the ones I chose turned out to be controversial. Suggestions are welcome.
* To all: I would like to include some illustrative examples, but the ones I chose turned out to be controversial. Suggestions are welcome.
[[User:Thunderbird2|Thunderbird2]] ([[User talk:Thunderbird2|talk]]) 12:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[[User:Thunderbird2|Thunderbird2]] ([[User talk:Thunderbird2|talk]]) 12:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:Thunderbird2 I cannot agree to anything which is opposite to the aims of Wikipedia neutral point of view.[[User:DavidPaulHamilton|DavidPaulHamilton]] ([[User talk:DavidPaulHamilton|talk]]) 15:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
too many topics to link here, all related to date autoformatting, date autolinking, whether either of these should be used, or which date format to use in different contexts
Concern: commas and dates
MOS:DATE#Dates (or any other section I'm aware of) does not clarify that commas have to be inserted for full dates which are wiki-linked. Example; a comma automatically appears in February 142008 (see the linked [[February 14]] [[2008]] here, note that it does not for February142008 and February 14 2008). In other words, if the date is linked, the comma is visible to viewers even though it is not edited into the context. So, can someone see the logic in this revert? To me, this is like placing the |right| to an image which already has a mark-up like |frame| or |thumb| which sets the image to the right by default. My proposal — the guideline should say that a comma does not need to be inserted for a correctly linked date. Is this understandable? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with saying a comma does not need to be inserted with the [[February 14]] [[2008]] format, but I'm less clear on recommending it. No comma seems to confuse editors. With [[14 February]], [[2008]], I think the comma should be removed and not restored, since MediaWiki removes it anyway for viewing, but editing solely for this would be a trivial edit. Gimmetrow03:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline doesn't say that is HAS to be added, but it also doesn't say it HAS to be removed. If the comma is optional, the guideline probably should note that, but I don't think that should be a justification to remove them. Does having the comma there cause any actual problems? If not, when doing February 14, 2008, why remove the comma? It seems like a personal editing preference, and not one that needs to be "corrected" unless there is an actual reason to do so. Collectonian (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is a bit pointless. When a complete date is wikilinked, it will always display correctly—for the American style the comma will be inserted where it is not present. The opposite applies for British style, where the comma is deleted if present. This applies also for unregistered users. But mention should be made of this somewhere to prevent unnecessary editing. I had a discussion about this before (here) and still have the test in my sandbox (if anyone's interested be sure to switch of dates preferences beforehand). TINYMARK04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's just like the image sample I cited: why add |right| if |thumbnail|, |frame|, etc., already does the job? It's past redundant. Therefore, the guideline should make note of this. Do we have an agreement? Can this be indicated in the guideline now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd link to see an alternative way of formatting dates than using double brackets ([[ ]]). The problem I see lies in there not being consensus on how dates should appear (American vs international), leading to a system where user preferences can be set to recognise and format all dates marked in a certain way. Fine, up to a point. However, in using the article linking mechanism, dates are being linked left right and centre, when there is no real reason to - many dates in articles have no great historical significance, and do not even warrant a mention in the linked date article. Nevertheless, there appear to be editors who spend most of their time manually making these links. This labour-intensive and overlinking to dates and years articles (just check their backlinks and you will see what I mean - there are well in excess of 20,000 articles linked toJanuary 1 alone), and the paranoïa apparently associated with it drives me nuts. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. There should as well be a section on which layout is preferred. That'll be hard to decide, albeit there really isn't a standard preference, it'll have to be one or the other. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What we should not be doing is what you did in your original post, Sesshomaru. Don't link February to the article on the month, link 14 (meant to be the day of the month) to article on the year AD 14 and 2008 to article on the year AD 2008. That's already covered in the MoS, isn't it?
Our standard "look and feel" is the results we get from dates properly formatted for user preferences. There is no preference from among those options, if that's what you are talking about. It is best to enter it the way it appears, but the missing or extra comma we are talking about there won't make much difference in the results, and in not in itself reason to edit an article.
Yes, the software will fix some of the problems even for users who are not logged in. I used to think, after the software started acting that way, that it no longer mattered if a linked-for-preferences date was linked as "[[January 15]], [[1961]" or "[[January 15]], [[1961]", but if I recall correctly, somebody pointed out some case in which it does make a difference. But maybe I just imagined that, I cannot tell you what it would be. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure if you're upset or bothered by anything Gene. I was making a simple point about the comma in those samples. In any case, shall I update this page per discussion or are there any opposing? Seems to be legit. However, I'll refrain from mentioning how dates should appear, American vs international-wise, since that would require a separate section. Agreed by all parties? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand your point, and going by what you were edit-warring about, we most certainly should not be saying not to use commas on the edit page, in places where they would normally appear in what readers see on the article page. Why in the world are you even asking for that? Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I take that back; not edit-warring. It was just a first impression, when you were complaining about someone's reversion of your edit removing commas from the Month DD, Year format. I don't think you have any cause for complaint; we should not be running around removing the commas. That's the point I'm trying to get across. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise: how about having the guideline say something like, "commas for the [[February 14]] [[2008]] format do not need to be inserted since they are visible even without them in the edit."? Implying not to use commas no matter the circumstance is a tiny bit irrational, I guess. This makes sense? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know why you're saying this. You don't want the commas removed in pages that you heavily edited, like List of Star Ocean EX episodes? Can I ask why? If someone has enough spare time on their hands, I don't see why they should not run around and get the job done. It's optional. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I don't. I see no point to it. I find it rather annoying, as it isn't needed or useful at all. If people have time on their hands, I'd rather them do something that actually improves the articles rather than just do such an extremely meaningless edit. It would be one thing if removing the commas actually fixes anything, but it doesn't. Even tag and go is more useful than stripping out the commas. Its about as pointless an edit as one can get. And, as TinyMark notes, it is another watchlist addition that gets to be doubly annoying when someone comes along, is editing, noticing there are none, and feels they need to fix it. I also find the code looks very ugly without the commas and I think it would be very confusing to anyone who doesn't understand that the commas are not needed (a good chunk of editors, I'd suspect). Maybe I'm an anal web developer, but I seriously abhor ugly code :P Collectonian (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think the layman will assume that a comma is missing (that's what the preview button is for). But I see both of your points. What about the dates in pages that already have no commas? Are you two suggesting that the commas should be inserted because the layman will think they are missing and will "explode" one's watchlst? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If any article is already without commas, then no need to insert either. So my basic position is, if they are there, leave them there, if they aren't, leave them out, though if a newbie editor comes alongs and adds them because they think they are missing, no need to yell either (though feel free to undo and explain). Its kind of like referencing, I guess. If a valid referencing style is already in heavy use (such as Harvard referencing), don't run through and completely redo to your preferred referencing style (maybe using templates). In the case of citation styles, Wikipedia:Citing sources includes language regarding that:
"Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style or system used by the first editor to use one should be respected."
I guess that could work, but what about Death Note? Some dates there have a comma, others do not. And if someone comes along and removes the commas while doing other good faith edits, like I did here, one should not revert blindly or undo only the removal of the commas, as that seems to be a case of Wikipedia:Ownership. So can we integrate what I just said into the guideline as well? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For Death Note, if we use the citation guideline, then whichever was used first should be kept and the rest changed to match. As for the Star Ocean issue, well, as has already been noted, removing wasn't necessary. The list was created with them (first editor to use), and that shouldn't have been changed. Your other good faith edit (only one other thing) was put back. Collectonian (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a slight modification of the quote from cite, retooled to dates, would be fine. So something like: "Commas are not required to be used in full format American dates. Their inclusion or exclusion is a stylistic and editorial preference. Either style is acceptable so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the method already established in an article, so that if the article has dates with commas, then the commas should be left alone and new dates added to the article should have commas. If the dates in the article do not have commas, then they should not be added to existing dates and new dates should not have them. Where there is disagreement or the article currently has a mix of commas and no commas, then the earliest format used should be respected and the article changed to be consistent with that format." Collectonian (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! I noted that the Death Note page first used commas, then some were removed. I shall correct this problem soon. Okay, go ahead and update the guideline, would you? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added. I wasn't completely sure where to put it, so I put it in the section on full date formatting. If someone feels it should be positioned differently, feel free to shift around.Collectonian (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Section break
This has not been thought through. It is not necessary or even useful to have a different standard for articles that pertain to American topics. If I am editing a section of an article on a clearly British topic to correct a misspelled word, and then also see a mess like "happened on the 14<sup>th</sup> of Sept [[1777]]", I can simply change it to "happened on [[14 September]] [[1777]]". If I see this in a section of an article on a clearly American topic, I would, according to these new instructions. need to:
get out of edit mode on that section.
view or edit the entire article, examining it to see if there are any dates in either of 2 formats, [[July 4]], [[1776]] or [[July 4]] [[1776]].
if there are none, pick one format and use it for the mess I found.
if all other dates are in one of those 2 formats, use that format to fix the messy date.
if there are several dates in each format, spend half the afternoon digging through the revision history trying to find the revision that first introduced one of these 2 formats, and use that format to fix the other dates that were added since, and the messy date.
If this strikes anyone as an unrealistic burden to throw on the back of editors who are trying to clean up articles on American topics, I agree and sympathize with you completely. Before the manga edit skirmish began, we had 2 formats: [[July 4]], [[1776]] or [[4 July]] [[1776]], for west of the Atlantic and east of it. I feel that adding a 3rd format and encouraging its use (just because it is known that the software will fix it for general display) detracts from Wikipedia. I will remove that recommendation from the guideline. An agreement between two editors doesn't constitute much of a consensus. Chris the speller (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying anything about adding a 3rd format. The article already says you can use [[July 4]], [[1776]] or [[July 4]] [[1776]]. The paragraph just clarifies that people shouldn't go around removing all the commas in an article because the comma isn't needed, nor should they be added in, rather as with sources, stick with the method already in use in the article. Collectonian (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement is completely incorrect. Nowhere does the guideline say that [[July 4]] [[1776]] is an acceptable format. Please remove that paragraph or allow me to remove it again. Chris the speller (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is shown in the table lower in the page. Personally, I agree, but as other editors have used this guideline to say commas are not required and have removed them (and not just the case noted here), something should be added to clarify. The paragraph is an attempt to do so. Do you have another suggestion for a better way to deal with it? Collectonian (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will see that I am on your side if you read the discussion "Commas in linked dates" in Archive 94 of this talk page. Back then I was afraid that including "[[May 15]] [[2005]]" in the table would lead to some editors to think that it was an acceptable format, but there was an insistence on leaving it in to provide a complete list of formats that the autoformatting software could or could not handle. You have shown that my fears were justified. The omission of the comma has come up several times, but a consensus to allow dropping it has never been achieved. My last comment in that discussion clearly shows that I opposed editing just to remove a comma from the British-style dates, so I wholeheartedly oppose removing them from American-style dates. The removal of commas from the manga article was not only a waste of time for that editor and a waste of Wikipedia resources, but turned into a further burden on those taking part in discussions here. I kept getting beat up about that table and the green check marks and red X's. If you want to support adding a couple of red X's to that table instead of the 2 wimpy asterisks, maybe we can get this cleared up. Chris the speller (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the green checks and red X's that were in the table here? Never mind that the legend below it is inaccurate in this version. Would something like this work to show what formats are acceptable? Chris the speller (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about adding green check marks on the left of the table, just for the two formats that are accepted by the MOS? Red X's are already used on the right to indicate what will display as a dead link. Chris the speller (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Section break 2
Totally different perspective (on original issue raised in this thread): The comma absolutely must be used in the [[February 29]], [[2007]] format (and never in the other). The geeky reason is that the entire web has been evolving for over a decade now toward the complete separation of content and presentation markup, and this violates that principle. The more practical and immediate WP reason is that, as most of you know, Tony1 and others have been working hard to raise awareness of the absolute suckitude of the current date formatting system, with the eventual badly-desired result of removing the [[...]] markup that causes the dates to be wikilinked for no reader-useful reason, to be replaced by something as yet undetermined. It is very likely in my opinion that the developers will eventually fix this with an "intelligent" solution that auto-parses correctly formatted dates on-the-fly, in precisely the same way that it auto-parses correctly formatted cases of ISBN followed by an ISBN number, rather than introduce some wacky new markup that no one understands ($#$February 27 2008$#$ or whatever). I'd bet real-world money on it. If I'm right, potentially millions of dates will not be auto-formatted because MOSNUM will have told editors they can be lazy and omit the commas, resulting in malformed dates when the square-brackets are removed for implementation of the new date coding system. For this reason, I correct cases of [[February 29]] [[2007]] on sight. PS: The idea of "oh, well, the smart autoparser can just recognize that format too" does not fly, because WP is open content, meaning that it can be reused in any way that people want, including selectively downloading the wiki, not HTML source and stripping out what they don't like and reworking it; we have no guarantee at all that the MediaWiki parser will be used in any particular case of legitimate re-use of WP content. We cannot permit invalid content just because we're lazy and we assume (in some cases falsely) that tricky aspects of the MediaWiki code transmogrification process will compensate for our errors. By way of analogy, it would be trivial for the MW developers to install code that corrected on-the-fly all instances of "hte" and "corect" so that they were spelled correctly by the time the code was rendered in the browser window, without actually correcting these errors in the source code. No way, José. We have bots (and humans) correcting the source for a reason. This is why you will probably notice plenty of people going around and correcting cases of <br> to <br />. It simply doesn't matter that MW is smart enough to send the latter to the browser on-the-fly without correcting the source. The source has to be clean. A very probable (maybe already common!) use case for repurposing WP content is to get the WP database, load it into a customized instance of MW, remove all unwanted templates, subst all the rest of them with a bot, and replace all wikimarkup with its XHTML equivalents, then export the resulting lovely, validating XHTML code to a completely different kind of server. Not correcting <br> and not fixing [[February 29]] [[2007]]in the wiki code itself is going to really screw up that kind of WP content re-use. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›01:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SMcCandlish that dates formatted like February 29, 2008 should have a comma, because to drop the comma is incorrect, and dates should appear correct to those who do not set any date format preference. I do not agree that dates which totally lack markup will ever be formatted automatically. One obstacle is dates within direct quotations; these should not be reformatted. Another obstacle is cases where the number following the month and day is not a year, but some other quantity. To make up an example, "The number of prisoners taken on February 28 was 2000, and on February 29, 2500." --Gerry Ashton (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial. Unusual cases like that would be handled in exactly the same way as us not wanting to autowikilink in a quotation that read "...I thought it was ISBN 978-1-59874-011-0 but it wasn't...". Just do this: "...I thought it was <nowiki>ISBN 978-1-59874-011-0</nowiki> but it wasn't...", which renders as "...I thought it was ISBN 978-1-59874-011-0 but it wasn't...", as it should. We do this stuff all the time, like when you need to italicize something that begins with an apostrophe, etc., etc., etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›05:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish is right on the mark: we should not count on questionable MW software to correct our sloppiness. I have added green check marks to the table to show what is approved by this manual. Chris the speller (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My clarification of the table has been reverted twice, on aesthetic grounds. Apparently, not offending one editor's tastes is more important than having a guideline that avoids confusing many editors. I am walking away from this one. In fact, I will now unwatch this discussion page, which has had the benefit of a few very thoughtful and eloquent editors, but has also seen them nearly drowned out by hordes of people intent only on pushing their own personal tastes. This has taken far too much of my time, and I will be happier improving Wikipedia articles than trying to wade through all the bickering. Those who stay and continue trying to make this guideline useful have my best wishes. Chris the speller (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chris the speller: I’m sorry to see you go. I haven’t been involved in this discussion thread. I only became interested because of the post at the very bottom of this page (∆ here) talking of “awful kindergarten graphics”. That of course, made me curious. Which page? This discussion page? I had to search to find out that the “kindergarten graphics” being referred to was check marks: …which you used in a table. They didn’t seem bad to me and you certainly didn’t deserve the smack down you received.
I encourage you, Chris, to come on back and get back into the saddle soon after the sting wears off. I really think MOSNUM needs an infusion of new blood. I’m not suggesting that there is anything wrong with the current “regulars”—not at all; we need old-timers to help keep us on track and explain history to us so we aren’t doomed to repeat past mistakes. On the other hand, I think it was wrong for a new arrival to get so soundly stomped on over such a trivial issue as the relative aesthetics of a checkmark. One of the editors posted this for their edit comment when he/she deleted your check marks: “removing yet more ugly check marks; approved by who?” Someone please correct me if I’m wrong here, but anyone can make minor edits on MOSNUM. Yes, like anything else on Wikipedia, those changes can always be reverted when another editor disagrees. But I don’t think Chris needed “approval” from one of the regulars around here to add them.
May I suggest we try to be a bit more accommodating to outsiders here? I think Chris the speller is feeling a bit like the first female firefighter to try to join the NY City Fire Department: more than a bit unwelcome. Only, what is at stake here isn’t as important as the physical ability of a firefighter to “carry a 200-lb mayor out of a burning building”. Talk:MOSNUM is a market for the exchange of thought. I hate to sound like a University poster-boy for politically correct slogans, but some extra diversity of opinion can be very helpful on MOSNUM and we need to help newcomers to feel welcome. If there was more “history” to this spat than is apparent and this issue was just a “straw that broke the camel’s back” so to speak, I apologize for interceding without having researched this better. But at this point, I’m just not seeing a good justification for what lead up to Chris calling it quits on MOSNUM. Greg L (my talk)05:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already had this discussion in early February after I pointed out the table showed the wrong rendered formats for the comma cases. Chris the speller then placed red checkmarks with the comma cases, which I removed since they do render to one of the standard date formats, and we came to an agreement to have the double-asterisk ** note. Or so I thought. Sorry for being a bit abrupt, but I was surprised when the same edit appeared a couple days ago claiming some forms were now "approved".
I think it's a bad idea to list "approved forms" for wikitext. If it doesn't concern appearance, it shouldn't concern the Manual of Style, which is a guide for the style and formatting of articles as they are read. The MoS discusses wikitext occasionally to note alternatives producing the same rendered page, such as either one or two spaces after a period. As far as I know, we don't have MoS pages telling people to only use one space, or to write <br />, or to format cite templates with one field per line, or to use cite templates rather than hand-written references. Or do we now? Gimmetrow07:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn’t come across as abrupt at all Gimmetrow; thanks for taking the time to fully explain this. As I feared, this was a “tip of the iceberg” issue. It seemed a lot more trivial than that due to SandyGeorgia’s post, which read “I just tried to remove some awful kindergarten graphics from this page, but edit conflicted with Gimmetrow, who beat me to it. Please, this isn't a picture book, and we don't need these illustrative gimmicks.”. As you can imagine, given that post, and your recent edit summary statement, the conflict seemed much more superficial—and unwaranted—than it really was. Greg L (my talk)16:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish I hadn't dewatched listed this now. Can't this be made clearer in the guideline, some how. The issue of comma stripping is again coming up, now on Ballad of a Shinigami in which an editor decided he needed to "clean up" the article by stripping out all of the commas from the dates. It isn't superficial and it is increasingly becoming a problem as editors claim they are unnecessary due to auto-formatting while others point to the MOS and say they should be included, but the MOS is so ambiguous they argue it isn't said explicitly and just keep doing it. Collectonian (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the MOS, Japan uses both, so its up to the editor. "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should generally use the more common date format for that nation; articles related to Canada may use either format consistently. Articles related to other countries that commonly use one of the two acceptable guidelines above should use that format." The consensus in the project (and this MOS) is to use whichever format was first used, either American or International. In almost all cases, American is first used for articles on anime and manga, so that is what almost all use. Collectonian (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that the primary material (light novels) and anime are released internationally, the novels in North America, the anime via online (though only available to Australia/New Zealand I believe).--十八02:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's silly to edit just to change the wikitext when it has no effect on display. It might have been best if the MediaWiki software had never started adding/removing commas and spaces automatically. Gimmetrow18:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Next try
It's been a while so perhaps things have settled, and I've asked Chris the speller back. I think our goals are not incompatible. I mainly want these edits (switching commas around in wikilinked dates) to stop, and I think the solution is to redesign the table more substantially.
We should just list the basic forms which produce autolinking. When discussing the redlink forms there is no need to show how they look under different format prefs since they don't change. Finally, observe that some variations in commas and spacing in the wikitext produce the same rendered forms, and there is no need to add or remove commas. I would even go so far as to say if there is any dispute about the wikitext, it should match the displayed form. I'm seeimg some editors even removing *spaces*: [[1 January]][[2001]] and [[January 1]][[2001]] render as 1 January2001 and January 12001. This needs to stop. Gimmetrow04:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding below. The table currently live on the page is mistaken in how [[15 May]] is rendered under different preferences. Gimmetrow05:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The table looks fine. The note that it will "display [[May 15]] [[2005]] as May 15, 2005 even for users not logged in" seems one-sided, as it does not point out that it will also "display [[15 May]], [[2005]] as 15 May2005 even for users not logged in." The extra comma on one side of the Atlantic is equal and opposite to the missing comma across the pond. And saying that the "comma is optional in this case" gives too much encouragement to editors who would like to depart from the formats that have been approved. As pointed out above by SMcCandlish, "we have no guarantee at all that the MediaWiki parser will be used in any particular case of legitimate re-use of WP content". Chris the speller (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, you seemed to argue that the comma was needed because there's no guarantee that any re-use will use the MediaWiki parser; are you saying you now don't like Stanton's argument at #Section break 2? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I totally agree with SMcCandlish on the matter of commas in dates, unless I'm missing something. My wording in the draft below does not conflict with his comments, as far as I can see. Chris the speller (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It runs against my views to make suggestion about wikitext which has no affect on displayed form, and it was about as far as I could go to say the comma in [[May 15]], [[2005]] "should not be removed over objections", which is now gone. That statement was quite enough to stop silly edit fights, no? That treats the issue as a courtesy to fellow editors, so if there are any objections the default is wikitext matching the displayed form (ie, comma in May 15, 2005, no comma in 15 May 2005). But since it has no effect on displayed form it's not a style issue per se, and the MoS shouldn't be saying what's proper and improper. Gimmetrow19:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is dragging on. I'm going to assume no objection to the draft below if there is no further response for a few days. Gimmetrow00:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Draft
What you type
What logged-in registered users see (settings on first row)
* Non-registered users and registered users not logged in
The year should be wikilinked separate from the date except for dates in ISO 8601 format. Other full date formats will not autoformat when wikilinked, and are likely to produce a redlink: [[2005 May 15]] produces 2005 May 15.
MediaWiki allows some variation in spacing and comma. For example, [[May 15]] [[2005]] will display as May 15, 2005 even for users not logged in. Although the comma is supplied by the MediaWiki software in this case, the comma need not and should not be removed from the wikitext if there is any objection. Wikitext which differs from the displayed form can be confusing to editors. Likewise do not write [[15 May]], [[2005]] or [[15 May]][[2005]].
Omegatron's proposal on a kind of no-break space at bugzilla
I agree the discussion should be in one place at a time ... nothing was going on there when I posted this :) Let's keep it there for now, but input would be appreciated, we don't get to take our concerns to bugzilla every day, and this one is important (to me). - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So many responses come to mind, but just one seems relevant. In wandering around Wikipedia, I've noticed that some discussions are more useful than others. A useful rule of thumb is to talk about things on the right page, and never on two different pages at once, otherwise things get a lot harder than they need to be. Note that, now that Stanton is back, he has moved several discussions that were in WP:MoS over here; good for him. We should be more careful to do that. In this particular case, the discussion has relevance to a bunch of different issues at the same time, so, as I pointed out above, we're arguing this one over in WP:MoS, where you will find that I gave additional links to official lists of SI symbols. The discussion needs more eyeballs, and there's some urgency, because there's an open request at bugzilla. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like Gerry Ashton, I was curious enough to click on the monobook.js link. Also like him, I did not understand the programming language used in the script, but something caught my eye nevertheless. Just after the comment "// decibel" is the command
The reason I am curious is that the decibel is no ordinary unit. It is a (logarithmic) unit of ratio, and often meaningless unless accompanied by more information about both numerator and denominator of that ratio. It seems unlikely to me that such subtle (but important) considerations are taken into account by a single command. Hence the request for clarification. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It simply replaces any sequence of the form { <digit> <zero or one space character> "dB" <word boundary> } with { <same digit> < what I assume is actually a non-breaking space no, it's just a space> "dB" }. I don't think any special considerations are applicable here, though I'll note that this statement will not do the same for, e.g. dBA dBV and so on. --Random832 (contribs) 19:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This line
txt.value = txt.value.replace(/º/g, '°');
is indiscriminate. It will replace instances even where the Ordinal indicator character is actually intended.
replaces all instances of the word "centigrade" in any context. "The Celsius temperature scale was previously known as the centigrade scale." would become "The Celsius temperature scale was previously known as the Celsius scale."
User:SkyLined is working on a template {{val}}that'll fix this. Right now it's buggy (problem with 0s and the max number of digits mostly) though, so it's hard to recommend as if, but having wikipedia automattically replace anything indiscriminately is a BAD, BAD, BAD idea.
Examples: 123123.123234MeV/c2, 1.22(35)×10−12 s
[[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]) 13:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
No no no. The Mediawiki feature changes regular spaces into non-breaking spaces for display only. Currently, if you type « something in guillemets », the spaces between the guillemets and the words are converted into nonbreaking spaces when the page is rendered (see the wiki source and HTML source for the example I just typed). We are proposing that this be extended to units and dashes.
This will not add spaces where none previously existed. It will not affect the article's source code. All it will do is prevent numbers and units from breaking lines. False positives can be fixed by changing the regexp and nothing will be harmed by it. The worst thing that could possibly happen is two words not wrapping when they should. The link to Bobblewik's script is just an example of the kinds of units it could recognize, since my simple proposal to just change any instance of <number><space><letter> was rejected. — Omegatron (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was there consensus for the huge green box?
What is consensus?
I certainly would have liked notice that it was to be implemented. I see things I don't like, such as:
"Wikipedia’s mission is to communicate with minimal confusion so that readers can learn about a subject and are primed as well as possible to learn even more in their studies elsewhere. There are three important elements in determining what terminology and units of measure are best suited for a given article:"—What on earth is that first sentence doing there? There's quite enough ministering to the masses below: "... Wikipedia should mirror those practices so readers will be conversant and knowledgeable in the discipline".
There are continual MOS breaches in the curly quotes, which I've changed TWICE already, which pisses me. I think for this reason alone, the text needs to be removed until it complies. I intend to do so later today.
"Parenthetical conversions should be given where appropriate and should generally also follow the practices in current literature on that subject unless there is good reason to do otherwise." "Also" is redundant, and a comma is probably better before "unless".
Now these are examples of why text should not be shoved into important and influential pages without due process, and certainly not without notice and a deadline so people can fix it up. TONY(talk)08:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear ("which pisses me") and from your "get a life" comment from earlier you are angry about something. I suggest you take a break and do something else instead of making edits when you are angry. Fnagaton09:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You as individual might disagree but you cannot hold up the process of consensus with your own personal opinion. Don't insert disputed tags into the guideline that you do not have support for. Fnagaton12:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is absolutely no consensus. There isn't even consensus on whether or not we should have a "show of hands", let alone on the proposal itself. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The same reply to Tony applies to you: You as individual might disagree but you cannot hold up the process of consensus with your own personal opinion. So yes there is consensus, just claiming there isn't despite the preponderance of evidence against your personal opinion does not mean you can add the disputed tag. I'm going to give you one chance to post substantive objections. If you do not then you have no valid reason to add the disputed tag and your edit will be reverted. The same goes for Tony. As Francis Schonken points out there is "enough consensus on the update itself ". Fnagaton15:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Um ... where is it? Point to it, please." - Is not a substantive objection because it is just repeating the contrary without supplying any evidence and despite the preponderance of evidence on this page that is against your position. For the avoidance of doubt the consensus is demonstrated by the whole of the text on this page relating to this topic. Fnagaton16:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] It really is the height of arrogance to issue directives such as "I'll give you one chance". What a nerve; NEWSFLASH naggy—I'm not your servant. Now this situation is not going to repair itself any time soon. Something's going to have to crack, and it won't be me or the others who are gobsmacked at the jackboot methods being employed here. TONY(talk)16:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It really is the height of arrogance..." etc - Is not a substantive objection because it is it doesn't supplying any evidence and is that is despite the preponderance of evidence on this page that is against your position. Since Tony has not supplied a substantive objection he demonstrates that he has no valid argument for placing the disputed tag on the page. Fnagaton16:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, are you saying that in the current discussion, the weight of both sides (considering both "votes" and "strength of the arguments", subjectively) is roughly equal, or are you saying that there's a larger consensus on style guidelines pages not to make "half-done" changes? In the discussion that Lightmouse took to WP:VPP, WP:VPP#Using a policy page as a scratchpad to develop a proposal, Kim said (without challenge) that all the relevant policy discussions have concluded that the process "breaks" when you tell people, "Don't edit before you discuss". I'm not taking a position; I'm just saying I don't think people will let us do that. It seems to me your monthly summaries are quite the elegant solution. I don't know many reviewers (FA, GA, whatever) who participate in style guidelines discussions; I doubt that day-to-day instability on this page will make one bit of difference to them, but tidying things up (if possible) before the next monthly summaries come out would be great. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Especially the many reviewers who do not read or consult this page, and make objections which are contrary to long-established and quite stable recommendations here. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it is the height of arrogance when you claim to have "votes" on this, when in fact you went out and asked if we should have a vote on it, and haven't even gotten to the point of consensus on that question yet. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"On the contrary, it is the ..." etc - Is not a substantive objection because: 1) It is not a fact "you [I] went out and asked if we should have a vote on it". Since your claim is factually inaccurate then your conclusion is incorrect. 2) "and haven't even gotten to the point of consensus on that question yet." is inaccurate because the independent editor, Francis, came along and summarised "There's enough consensus on the update itself (see above)...". Since neither of your claims are a substantive objection and since nothing Tony has posted is a substantive objection then that means both of you have no valid reason to add a disputed tag to the guideline. Fnagaton17:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I agree that guidelines need to go light on "ministering" as you say, but I like the sentence you hated, because not understanding that (or understanding and disagreeing) is exactly what creates the problem that this new guidance addresses. I wouldn't mind if you want to try tweaking the tone of it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thunderbird2, regarding your change comment. I "gave Tony his chance" (and Gene also had a chance) and instead (see above) Tony chose to be uncivil and Gene misrepresented the situation. As such I have reverted their changes to add the disputed tag. Fnagaton17:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I told you where the consensus is in an earlier edit, do not misrepresent the situation. Do not remove large sections of the guideline without getting consensus for those changes. Do not act against the consensus demonstrated on this talk page. Fnagaton17:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you, it is shown on this talk page, in the sections above. Like Dank55 says below "The fact that this discussion went on for so long, with so much editing and so much input, does suggest to me there's a consensus". The fact is a different outside editor comes along, reads what has been going on and says "There's enough consensus on the update itself" disproves what you have been saying about "no consensus". By the way, consensus does not mean you have to agree with the changes, especially when you use your talk page to make personal attacks and then blank the page. Fnagaton18:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before responding I would like to thank Greg for his efforts in taking us this far. He has put a tremendous amount of energy into ‘Follow current literature’, and it has not always been an easy process, either for him or the rest of us involved. Has he attempted to address our concerns? Emphatically, yes. Has he incorporated a wide range of views from many different editors into the text. Yes. Has he gained consensus? I honestly don’t know. If you look at the discussion in detail, you will see that Tony is the latest of several editors to have expressed concerns about the process that got us here. In my view, that fact alone is enough to justify the ‘disputed’ banner until we sort this out. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To those who like to impose their views on others and act as censors by deleting a guideline they don’t agree with: Please stop pretending that your problem lies with the manner in which the this guideline was adopted or that a consensus hadn’t been reached. Francis Schonken stepped in after seeing Gene Nygaard improperly delete the guideline. Francis had earlier posted a comment on my talk page (Re. MOSNUM) that reads as follows:
A rough consensus seems to have formed.
Discussion seems to be style improvements of the wording now primarily (and "too long"/"too short" kind of comments) - nothing substantive to the core of the matter of this being a useful idea to be added to mosnum.
Yes the procedure was somewhat unusual. Nothing inappropriate or whatever though, congratulations!
Right there in Francis’s stated reason is the common-sense evidence the rest of us already know. How did Francis determine a “rough consensus” had been reached? Simply by looking at the totality of the contributions that had gone on (12.1–12.6, above). Just like Francis said, the contributing editors who were weighing in on helping to craft the new policy had long been focusing just on the details used as examples; there was clearly a “rough consensus” as to the basic, common-sense principal it conveyed. Most of these contributing editors who helped craft the guideline simply wanted to help on what they saw was just too much common sense as they believed it would make Wikipedia a better place; they have little stomach for all the conflict that accompanies guidelines that tread on the toes of the vocal minority. Greg L (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand from this that you were talking about what Gene did, Greg. Thunderbird and Tony seem to me to be saying that, if we've reached consensus, they can't tell exactly where it's landed. I think the recommendation for a vote on particular points that we might disagree on is a good one. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see Thunderbird just added a "disputed" tag; please don't edit-war over this, guys, it's a non-issue, just like page protection is a non-issue, as long as there's vigorous discussion that gets resolved in a few days. All the more reason to identify the points of contention and vote (or !vote :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dank55, Francis Schonken seems to be a wise and highly experienced editor who had been uninvolved here until the last minute. He has Wikipedia’s interests at heart. HIs conclusion that a “rough consensus” had been reached was based simply upon the application of a common-sense analysis of the totality of the edits and discussion that had occurred. Nothing more is needed. To the rest of us, the fundamental point of the new guideline isn’t at all controversial and is just the application of common sense in how one communicates to its readership; the only tough part was in agreeing upon the details of the examples used. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the rest of us haven’t the stomach for all the bickering that the vocal minority are so anxious to engage in. Greg L (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read the "rough consensus" the same way. The straw poll works for me, if people interpret it as "do you want to move forward roughly along these lines?", but we want to follow that by any polls needed to iron out precise wording, then finish with a "can everyone live with this?" poll. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm looking for the consensus that this Fnagaton person keeps loudly asserting exists. "in the section above" doesn't help me to locate it (I suspect it simply doesn't exist". At this stage, I'm looking not for rough consensus, but a posting of the exact proposed text HERE, not on the project page, and a call for consensus ON THAT TEXT. Rough will not do. I do not agree with the text that was shoved in the project page yesterday. TONY(talk)02:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're not in any hurry, because an admin just stuck a week-long protection on the page because of the edit warring, with the proposed text in place. It looks like the straw poll will pass easily, maybe we can move on to the next step tomorrow morning. Tony, you made a very reasonable IMO comment about the "ministering" tone; can you figure out a way to change the tone of that first sentence so that it's acceptable? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result from the Village Pump Policy discussion
Tony and Gene, I think it will help a bit if you go read the discussion at WP:VPP#Using a policy page as a scratchpad to develop a proposal. Lightmouse brought this discussion there, and I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the questions you're asking were answered there. In particular, Kim said: "It is your own responsibility to check and ensure that the pages are in fact in line with community consensus (and also to correct them when they are not). [Summary:] Of course it's ok to discuss first, BUT DO NOT FORCE YOUR PREFERENCE ON OTHERS , it breaks the wiki-process! Allow people to use normal wiki-editing or BRD if they prefer." Kim went on to say "Wow, I don't recall using all-caps very often before... :-P But this is a point worth hammering down, before people start taking the wiki out of wikipedia. Don't break the wiki-process please!" What I take from this discussion is:
It's not okay to claim that there's no consensus because it hasn't been presented in some fashion, such as a vote. It's up to each person to read all the comments and exercise judgment about how many people feel what way and why. The fact that this discussion went on for so long, with so much editing and so much input, does suggest to me there's a consensus, but I'll be happy to discuss this if others disagree. It's always possible to claim that the consensus will change any minute when new people arrive; but I'll have to hear that argument to believe it.
It's not okay to say, "Your methods are not acceptable, so the consensus you arrived at doesn't count." On the question of what consensus now is, it doesn't matter how we got here, and "punishment" for "violations" is not an option. If someone did something wrong, take them to WP:AN/I.
Even more than usual, I could be wrong on this one. If I am, I suggest we invite in the people from WP:CONSENSUS and WP:VPP who discuss issues like these on a regular basis. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we do; a straw poll should demonstrate it. The last time we had a straw poll on these pages, an editor took his solitary dissent as evidence of non-consensus. I trust this will not recur. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson20:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Straw poll
OK, let's have a straw poll. Who supports the sentiments in the green boxthe below quotationin principle, setting aside disputes about minor matters: precise wording or the choice of examples? (by PMAnderson20:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC) )[reply]
Use terminology and symbols commonly employed in the current literature for that subject and level of technicality. When in doubt, use the units of measure, prefixes, unit symbols, number notation, and methods of disambiguation most often employed in reliable periodicals directed to a similar readership.
Wikipedia’s mission is to communicate with minimal confusion so that readers can learn about a subject and are primed as well as possible to learn even more in their studies elsewhere.
Your deletion of the guideline seemed astonishingly arrogant for someone who never bothered to participate (under that user account) in any of the process that lead to it. If you are in fact Sareene (I don’t know if this is the case), you are blocked for life and are not welcome here. If you are genuinely new to all of this, you need to learn how things work around here. Under no circumstances do you just wade in and delete something that had been worked on for so long by so many. Greg L (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Stuff like that happens all the time, Greg; it violates the infobox at the top of every guidelines page, but if I had a dime for every time it happened, I'd donate them all to Wikipedia and they wouldn't need to do any more fundraising. If you believe CharlesFinnegan is a sock of a banned user, mention it at WP:AN; don't mention it during a poll to discredit the opposition, that's foul play. As I said above, my "support" vote means "the process is headed in the right direction, let's get on with votes over specifics." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: (1) Substantive objections to the text: I started to point out my objections here yesterday, just at the top of the green box. I have more objections. "In-principle" agreement means would mean only that the ACTUAL WORDING could be put to us here (not on the project page) to gather consensus). Now is the time to put the actual wording to us for consensus. (2) Breach of a central WP process: I will never agree to a "Proposal" that has been arrogantly spattered onto our project page before/duration the discussion process here, let alone consensus gathering on the talk page. (3) Can't the ISP address of this sock be checked? And why are there other redlinks participating now? Who are they? TONY(talk)02:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember right, there was a "vote" in WP:VPP about a month ago to allow non-traceable TOR accounts to log in, it "passed" 1-0. My guess is people are going to start reconsidering. Strike that, it was a discussion about the WP:IP_block_exemption. Not a lot we can do, Tony. As to the language: I propose that we give the straw poll another 12 hours and see what we've got. If it's clear that we're going forward, then please look at the text we've got now and make suggestions, Tony. I like the sentence you didn't like, but not in its current form; you're right, it "ministers". What would be better? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Editors who will “never agree” to this guideline because of one reason or another can choose to sit it out on the sidelines if that suits them. That’s all I have to say regarding the “process” by which it was adopted. As for the basic principle underlying the guideline, it is common-sense stuff from Technical Writing 101 and is a natural extension of MOSNUM#Which system to use, which states “In scientific articles, [editors should] use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic.” It should have been here long ago. As for the details of the examples, I leaned over backwards as far as I could to strike a compromise with every single editor who was interested in weighing in on the subject, which wasn’t easy because at one time or another, one editor was asking for the polar opposite of what another editor wanted. To all those with the can-do spirit, we can—and will—continue to collaboratively work on this from hereon. I don’t think the supporters here need much of my help now; it looks like they’ve got things well in hand now. Bravo to you all. Greg L (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hello, it's not a football stadium. Your "rah rah" attitude makes me want to puke. Can't you see that as soon as the page is unfrozen, I and others will quite justifiably start hacking into the bits that are unacceptable, including contraventions of MOS and bloated, irrelevant, inappropriate statements. That's what should happen on the talk page, not the project page. So there will be insability on the project page: you and your self-congratulatory football lackies will be entirely to blame for that. Or you can do the proper thing, and post it HERE so we can get agreement on the wording. This idea of "rough" consensus serves absolutely no purpose. TONY(talk)03:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you write demonstrates exactly what is wrong about your position because you demonstrate that you cannot support it with valid argument so instead you use personal attacks and threats instead. Fnagaton16:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You really should choose your words more carefully Tony. When you write/threaten “I will never agree to (blah blah)…”, or how the moment the page becomes unfrozen, you will instantly start unilaterally “hacking” away at it, you come across as if you think your buy-in is required to accomplish anything here and that you fancy yourself as the mayor of MOSNUM who can edit against the will of the consensus. Earth calling Tony: sorry it doesn’t work that way. Unless you’ve got a “I am special” license (please present it to us if you’ve actually got one of those), even you have to accede to the will of the majority. My basic point here is that just because you are highly animated with your feelings about the guideline, that doesn’t entitle you delete and censor against the will of the majority. Greg L (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ack! Don't leave (if you've got the time to spare), you're doing great, Greg. Every good Wikipedian gets discouraged by the process. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You just don't get it, do you. One sentence? What gave you the idea that just one sentence is a problem? Read what I wrote below, which was just a start. TONY(talk)
Strong oppose. And an even bigger problem is the inclusion of this on the page even if there had been such an "in principle" support, which there wasn't. This is a senseless attempt to prohibit the establishment of a house style in Wikipedia, to remove conversions to units widely used in the real world. It isn't about permitting anyting; its goal is prohibition. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem is that it is simply an invitation for incessant haggling on hundreds of different talk pages, about a number of different issues, not all of them necessary in every proposal put forth here, but almost all of them including things such as
What is the "current literature"? Somebody's rejection of automotive magazines, and strange acceptance of the New York Times, as part of the "literature" related to automobiles in the discussion above is a prime example of the silliness we will get. (Search the page for "Car and Driver" or "New York Times")
How is that usage in the "literature" determined?
What happens when there are two or three or more different usages found in the literature?
What is the role of the recommendations of professional organizations in this issue. Somewhere, if I can ever find it again, is an extended discussion of the "literature" of some field using "millimolarity" (is that the correct term? the symbol is mM) per second, with an editor trying to keep out conversions of these obscure not-really-units measurements to real SI units, and after I repeatedly refuted the proponents claim that the literature doesn't use the SI units, the proponent also came back and acknowledged that the international professional organization involved also recommended Si units in this context. Does anybody know where that discussion was? It was a featured article, I think, at the time it was on the Main Page.
Does Wikipedia need to "mirror" each of the practices found in the literature? Just one of the practices found in the literature? Any practice found in 13.7% of the publications of professional papers in some limited subdiscipline in the past 13 years? Three years?
Who is the intended audience of an article?
What is the "subject" of the article?
What is the scope of the "discipline" involved? The kilogram article is not an article on gravimetry, is it? So what does that do to User:Greg L's repeated removals of SI conversions of the obsolete cgs units he insisted on using there, in the context of this proposal? Would this proposal require use of SI units in this article about another SI unit? Would it require use of the cgs units instead? If it allowed use of the cgs units, would it permit the conversion to SI units which GregL was so determined to keep out of there?
What is the "level of technicality" of a particular article?
This isn't the place to discuss any of those details, of course. What is relevant here is the fact that it is an open invitation to edit-warring and haggling on similar points on hundreds of individual articles, much of which can easily be avoided. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are silly and fallacious and we’ve seen them before. We’ve seen arguments like “what happens if one magazine says such ‘n’ such, then does that mean we’re supposed to use xyz unit?” or “how is anyone to know what unit is used in literature because it’s all such a big world out there and it’s all so confusing.” Or this one: “What is the "level of technicality" of a particular article?” As if that is all that hard to figure out and requires wisdom and insight not available to mere mortals. No it doesn’t. “Current literature on that subject” and “majority of reliable periodicals” provides all the required specificity to communicate to any reasonable editor and needs no further clarification. If you really have a hard time figuring out “who the intended audience of an article” is and “what is the ‘subject’ of the article” is, and “what the ‘level of technicality’ of a particular article” is, why are you here on Wikipedia editing articles?!? I have no interest in making personal attacks on you as an individual but your arguments are just silly and specious beyond all recognition.
Project-wide consistency can not be achieved without Wikipedia being all alone on this issue. I would have thought that using examples of Honda motorcycle “450 cc” engines would make the basic point abundantly clear. But it’s clear than nothing will for some editors. A common-sense application of the spirit of the guideline is all that is sufficient in order for editors to know what is the proper thing to do. Whether it’s cc when discussing Honda motorcycle engines or gals and µgal in a technically-oriented article where precision gravimetry is part and parcel with the topic, one uses the units used in that discipline. Your opposition to this basic principle of technical writing and your unfortunate choice of examples to fight this battle only demonstrates the weakness of you guys’ position. The BIPM has officially recognized the gal as being suitable for use with the SI since 1978 and yet here you are again fighting that same battle.
It is not your job Gene, to promote the adoption of the SI by writing articles in an “Oh… this is the units we use in this subject; don’tcha know”–fashion, when that is simply not the case. By using units used in current literature on that subject, we ensure the reader is properly prepared for their studies elsewhere—today, not some time in the far off future when SI has been better adopted. The rest of your objections are the same old tired arguments that try to dodge the fact that you simply think Wikipedia should be your platform to lead by example and promote the adoption of SI and the IEC prefixes (“256 mebibyte RAM card”). People don’t talk that way in the real world. Your writings remind me of the arguments a teenager gives for for all the reasons the lawn can’t be mowed. It’s not complex. If Encyclopedia Britannica and other encyclopedias use the units common to that industry, just pardon me all over if we look towards professional paid editors like them for guidance instead of you. Greg L (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greg L is wrong to claim that it is always easy to determine what units are preferred by the majority of reliable publications, and anyone who cannot do so is unfit to edit Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that the opponents of this proposal so frequently base their arguments on untrue facts? Gerry, please point out where it is claimed—either in the guideline (a product of many authors) or my writings above—that “it is always easy to determine what units are preferred by the majority of reliable publications”? I implied the obvious: that figuring out “who the intended audience of an article” is and “what is the ‘subject’ of the article” is, and “what the ‘level of technicality’ of a particular article” isn’t complex and editors who claim as much are using fallacious arguments as smokescreens to justify continuing to do things their own way. Is it really necessary to state “If the current literature is all over the map and there is no clear consistent practice in that discipline, then this doesn’t apply”? Arguments that amount to “no no; looking to current literature is far too complex of a task to ask of editors and it’s really much better to just allow editors to do whatever they feel like, even if it is a weird unit unused in the real world” just doesn’t cut it. Greg L (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The principle does not suggest what to do when the literature is all over the map, or if the editors can't agree on who the likely readership for an article is. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well… not the nutshell posted here. Here is the proposal, in its totality up to the point you are making:
Use terminology and symbols commonly employed in the current literature for that subject and level of technicality. When in doubt, use the units of measure, prefixes, unit symbols, number notation, and methods of disambiguation most often employed in reliable periodicals directed to a similar readership.
Wikipedia’s mission is to communicate with minimal confusion so that readers can learn about a subject and are primed as well as possible to learn even more in their studies elsewhere. There are three important elements in determining what terminology and units of measure are best suited for a given article:
Preference for modern units Wikipedia generally prefers modern systems of measurement, such as the SI, over U.S. customary units or the imperial system. Unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, write “the auto weighs 1450 kg (3200 lb)”, not the reverse.
Discipline-specific practices Wherever a discipline consistently uses its own units—either conventional or metric rather than SI—Wikipedia should mirror those practices so readers will be conversant and knowledgeable in the discipline. Editors should write…
If the discipline doesn’t consistently use its own units, then this portion of the guideline simply doesn’t apply and editors default to the Preference for modern units.
The above-quoted part is a subset of the entire guideline and doesn’t speak to Level of difficulty. Anyway, the issue of “likely readership” (as you wrote above) isn’t (or shouldn’t be) complex at this state of the discussion; for the most part, Wikipedia articles are directed to a general-interest reader (either Planck units, or units for “the rest of us”). I’m just taking this a point at a time…
The guideline is written to recommend that editors follow “current usage” in a given discipline only when the discipline consistently uses its own units. How do you know what units are used in a discipline? In many cases, the editors of a given article are familiar enough with the subject matter to know this. If there is doubt, look to current literature. Greg L (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the integrity of this talk page, so the below comment has some context instead of being left floating, there was a comment which was later completely removed by the same user with an uncivil edit comment. Fnagaton08:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
‘MOSNUM shouldn’t be expanded anymore’ is entirely beside the point of what we’re trying to accomplish here. If you think there is something wrong with the basic principle, please say so. And if so, please stand up to the lectern, speak clearly into the microphone, and state precisely what it is about the basic principle you disagree with. Greg L (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fnagaton, I see that this particular editor regrets having involved himself here with an “oppose” vote. I see that he even edited out his name from my above response, wherein I addressed him respectfully by title and name. It is clear as glass that the retraction of his vote was by design. One of his edit summaries in the history of this talk page states “I have made it perfectly clear. That I do not wish to be involved in this debate. Please stop dragging me into it.” I suggest that you, Fnagaton, revise your posting above to accommodate this editor’s wishes that he remain unassociated with this issue. As I said, I will let his edit of my post stand; such things would normally be unacceptable. I’ve worked with plenty of Ph.D.s before; I’m working with two now on an FDA animal study. Don’t read too much into the uncivil edit summary. Please, people should be allowed to bow out of things and save face at the same time. Greg L (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Now support (see discussion). The green box is bloated and cluttered. There are also a bunch of problem Jimp listed below and "in principle" votes are IMO trojan votes. Today we vote on the principles of the green box, which aren't even defined, and tommorow a sockpuppet named PrincessRaoul69 will use it against us saying that we agree "on principles" on whatever s/he wants us to agree on. (Apologies if there's a user named PrincessRaoul69 out there). IMO, we are much better if we start from scratch and vote on each sections of the green box. This way, slow but progress can be made towards a final "green box".[[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]]) 17:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Shorter Headbomb: I'm not going to answer the question asked. This is an effort to show if there is consensus in principle; if there is, then discussing bloated wording is in order. If there isn't, it doesn't matter whether it's bloated; it ain't consensus. The answer to PrincessRaoul is "No, we don't". SeptentrionalisPMAnderson18:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question was "Who supports the sentiments in the green box in principle [...]?" and right now I can't tell what those "sentiments" are. But whatever they are supposed to be, there are a great deals of problem with them, as listed by Jimp and who are currently being debated. Thus oppose. The rest of what I said were general comments. [[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]]) 18:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, it’s not complex:
Use terminology and symbols commonly employed in the current literature for that subject and level of technicality. When in doubt, use the units of measure, prefixes, unit symbols, number notation, and methods of disambiguation most often employed in reliable periodicals directed to a similar readership.
Wikipedia’s mission is to communicate with minimal confusion so that readers can learn about a subject and are primed as well as possible to learn even more in their studies elsewhere.
That’s the sentiment. We are asking that editors agree or disagree with this principle of technical writing in an encyclopedia. If disagree, please explain what is wrong with that principle. Greg L (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to change on what we vote halfway through the vote it becomes a pretty meaningless vote. If we vote on that quotation, then I support the general idea although SI and units accepted along SI should be given preference over non SI units when it is not clear which units is most often used. But by now I don't know what's the value of this vote anymore. [[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]]) 18:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Headbomb. If we agree on the basic principle of what Wikipedia should be doing (and I think we do), then working out the details with you should be an interesting and rewarding collaboration. Greg L (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient. If a unit of measure is used in a way that would be regulated by law if the object or service were offered for sale, use the unit of measure currently prescribed by law in the country, or most of the countries, where the object or service is (are) located. Otherwise, follow the advise at the head of this section. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC) modified 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supportin principle. I think that discipline specific stuff is a step in the right direction, but in its current form it maybe a little bloated. I feel that this addresses situations where a discipline may use a unit or unit symbol that is different from the SI standard (mbar vs hPa; cc vs cm3) or what is normally encountered for that measurement (psi vs lb/sq in; cu in vs cid). There are definitely some passionate (if that's the right word?) editors who advocate strict adherence to official SI policy. Which is ok if SI is the norm for that field, but if not, then it is heresy. There are situations in certain fields where 'cc' is the the norm not cm3 or mL; where mbar is the norm and not hPa (which are equal to each other yet displayed next to each other all the time). If steam engines in Europe have a gauge for pressure in kg/cm2, then that is what the article should report. I think that the purest of strict SI folks will know what is meant by kg/cm2; they just won't like it. Also, I do (and have in the past) echo the concerns of many that this whole green box should have been discussed first and longer before placing it on the mosnum. After a sizable discussion, we could then have placed the discussed version on the mosnum as a proposal with an invitation for more comment. I wouldn't object to the removal of the proposal from the mosnum and discussing it more on the talk if that helps. —MJCdetroit(yak)15:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose There's no way that a MOS guideline page should be defining Wikipedia's Mission. If in fact this is intended to refer to an agreed definition elsewhere, it should be linked. The closest approximation I've found so far was at meta:mission but that doesn't much resemble the statement above.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point that it should be a link instead, and agreed that the wording is unfortunate. However, I think I get where Greg was coming from; he's saying that the previous wording implied that people should use SI even in situations where few other people do, because that's a world we'd rather live in. If it's true that that used to be the viewpoint of WP:MOSNUM (and I'm not convinced that it was, but there is some sign of that), then that of course violates WP policy, and we should explain why we can't do that. Again, the problem from where I'm sitting is that both sides in this debate (when it's a debate) have successfully made the case that this is not a simple problem that can be handled with a few rules-of-thumb, but everyone is trying to handle it with a few rules-of-thumb. A few sources have been introduced, but not enough, and none that are broad enough to help us make the judgment calls in a variety of situations. I have to admit that I've lost interest at this point, but I'm still hoping someone will start quoting some relevant sources and perk me up. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would of course depend on the fix. In the case of eliminating the mission sentence, I would change to "Comment - would prefer:"
Use terminology and symbols commonly employed in the best of current literature for that subject and level of technicality. When in doubt, use the units of measure, prefixes, unit symbols, number notation, and methods of disambiguation most often employed in reliable periodicals directed to a similar readership.
LeadSongDog. Such wording is perfectly fine with those who support the basic principle being discussed here. I think that principle is merely a logical extension of MOSNUM #Which system to use, which states “In scientific articles, [editors should] use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic.” The proponents here have no hidden strings and hidden agendas. The effort here is only to advance a guideline that states that Wikipedia should use the SI unless there are industires and disciplines that universally, or near universally, use other units (e.g. gals in gravimetry, cc in Japanese motorcycles, megabyte in general-interest computers). If this is basically what you feel is proper, then we are in complete agreement on the basic principle (which is what this straw poll is about) and our differences lie only in the details of how to communicate the point. If so, may I suggest you change your vote to a conditional “support”? Greg L (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it plays out that way, sure. I'll wait a bit to see if there are others who see it differently from you. I would prefer that if we must choose examples, that they be somewhat less controversial ones, such as carat in jewelry or parsec in astrometry, simply in the interest of getting to an agreement. Others could be worked out individually later, perhaps on a sub-page specifically for those units under dispute.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. For binary units of measurement, KB, MB, GB, etc. are here to stay regardless of whatever efforts to change them. This principle will help stem the tide of pointless edits relating to the use of units. These edits don't help what so ever. I would prefer my contributions to be factual contributions, not reverts that later lead onto long debates that are of no benefit. Rilak (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The whole reason the IEC prefixes exist is that using "terminology and symbols commonly employed in the current literature" does not "communicate with minimal confusion." This proposal is therefore in conflict with itself. Jeh (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a common sentiment of the “oppose” crowd. I appreciate, Jeh, that you had the courage to aim directly at the heart of the issue rather than indirectly nip at this proposal’s heels. IMO though, this is making a mountain out of a mole hill. All the mainstream computer magazines (PC World and dozens of others) and encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica manage to effectively communicate with their readerships without using “mebibyte”. Wikipedia should too. All we have to do as volunteer, contributing editors is assume for a moment that the professional, paid editors of those publications might know more than we do and simply follow suit rather than put Wikipedia in the position of following its own course. Rilak above, made an important observation about the simple reality of where we are now. We need to fix this. Greg L (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, I do not think it is reasonable for you to write objections to every vote here with which you disagree. But since you opened it up... Ah, no, they are NOT "effectively communicating with their readerships". If they were, we would not have had the lawsuit against Seagate. Note that that lawsuit proceeded even though Seagate uses a disambiguation technique favored by the anti-IEC prefix crowd here, namely printing "1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes" on their boxes. Most other hard drive makers do the same. Nevertheless, many computer-oriented web forums still get periodic questions -- "why does my 300 GB hard drive show up in Windows as just 279 GB?" The number of people who try to answer by claiming "you lose it in formatting" is pretty telling, too. You obviously disagree, but you cannot claim there is consensus here to not use IEC prefixes. There are a significant number of people in favor of them, and you can't dismiss their arguments as simply "I like it". Jeh (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lawsuits over hard drive capacity proves only that the American system of tort law is lucrative for lawyers. It says nothing about the ability of magazines and encyclopedias to routinely communicate to their readerships without relying upon units of measure that the typical Wikipedia reader doesn’t recognize and will not likely encounter in the real world after leaving Wikipedia. As Rilak said, “[the] binary units of measurement, KB, MB, GB, etc. are here to stay regardless of whatever efforts to change them.” The IEC prefixes are simply a good idea that failed and their continued use here by some editors is just silly stubbornness rather than wise editorial policy. Greg L (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. I merely restored this page (note that that is "page" singular, David, not "pages") to its previous state. True, the previous state used IEC prefixes, but they were there long before the IP editor gratuitously removed them. What the IP editor did, and what YOU did, David (changing IEC prefixes to SI prefixes on a page that had used IEC for some time, by apparent consensus of that page's editors) is AFAICT exactly what Sarenne was banned for, but in reverse (and of course of much smaller scope). Your and the IP editor's changes furthermore are in violation of what is still WP:MOSNUM: "There is consensus that editors should not change prefixes from one style to the other". My reversions (not "changing pages") were to revert edits that violated this policy. Contrary to your accusation, I have not initiated any changes to any pages to include IEC prefixes. Jeh (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've disambiguated the page so that it removes ambiguity. Also, enough of this bad faith "IP editor gratuitously removed them" and "What the IP editor did, and what YOU did, David " which is verging on violation of WP:PA and Wikipedia:CIVIL, let that be an end to it.Fnagaton01:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
During the lawsuit , Western Digital tried to use the IEC definitions to point out the GB was one billion and not a binary value. The plaintiff's successfully ridiculed the IEC binary prefixes. They claimed that the real world had not adopted this proposed standard. News story.Lawsuit settlement. It does not appear that using the IEC binary definitions will prevent lawsuits. All of the hard drive companies now specify the size of a GB on the drive packaging and documentation. This is their way of disambiguating the meaning of GB. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to prevent lawsuits is to close the courts. Furthermore, there is no absolute guarantee that the judge or jury will come to a reasonable verdict. But if only IEC prefixes are used to mark a product, it would be asinine for a judge or jury to conclude the prefixes mean something other than what the IEC says they mean. Now, if you mean the mere existence of the IEC prefixes means that the SI prefixes no longer have a binary meaning, but only a decimal meaning, then your right, the IEC prefixes have failed to abolish the binary meaning of SI prefixes. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the block log: "2008-05-01T11:42:13 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "Tarapotysk (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (MOS troll)" LeadSongDog (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I'm still somewhat new here, I expected it to appear on his (Tar's) user page. Anyway, Greg by his own admission contacted only editors who previously voted against IEC prefixes. Sure looks like votestacking to me. Jeh (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not accurate, Jeh, he contacted me and I previously voted for them. Let's drop it. Tarapotysk is now banned as a troll. If we scatter troll food around we'll just attract others.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Tarapotysk: Argument rejected as completely invalid posturing. I examined the names of the “support” votes from the original vote on Archive 97 and posted a message to that subset of the list who hadn’t yet weighed in on the current vote. It is entirely fair and proper to let these editors know that their original votes to discontinue the unwise practice of using the IEC prefixes were now meaningless and they were currently disenfranchised voters because the “IEC prefix” issue had morphed into the broader policy being discussed today. Their vote back then was an effort to get something done about this problem. As such, they are involved editors who have a right to be notified that the issue changed in form and their original votes no longer applied. Such editors must be given an opportunity to vote on this issue in its current form. This is an entirely different matter from the “carpet bombing” on un-involved editors that anti-canvassing policy is directed at. Greg L (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I did my notifications only to involved editors and did so out in the open, with complete transparency for all to see. The reason for posting the “green-div” box to MOSNUM was to attract the widest-possible spectrum of editors; whether that would garner “support” votes or “oppose” votes could not be predicted. There better not be any of this secret e-mailing to “friends” who are otherwise uninvolved editors. Now that would be votestacking. We’ve already seen what happens when some poor bastard jumps into this without realizing what the issue was all about. Greg L (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since nothing wrong was done I propose removing this entire section to stop the sock from getting any more attention. LeadSongDog and Greg would you both agree to having your edits removed from this section? Fnagaton19:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, you are not any sort of moderator here and as such you are not in a position to "reject" arguments except on your own behalf. Anyway... so... you admit you only contacted editors who had previously voted against IEC prefixes, yet you insist such is not votestacking??? So if I only contact (out in the open, with complete transparency) editors who previously voted in favor of IEC prefixes, I trust you won't consider that "votestacking" either? Even Fnagaton agrees that nothing wrong was done! (Not that votes matter much; consensus is not determined by vote.) And no, Fnag, this section should be preserved for this reason. Jeh (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeh, where above did I say I was speaking on behalf of others? Your imagination has run wild. You may contact any involved editor you like. Greg L (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped this straw poll would remove us from the insoluble circle of recrimination on what has been done in the past, by focussing on the soluble question of whether there was consensus on the principle of the new section. I post immediately after comments, which encourage me to comment that the old text without "follow current literature" is not only failing to be consensus, but is, at this point, distinctly a minority view. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson13:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a simpler solution, perhaps based on "prefer SI units, unless there is a strongly-established convention in a particular field to use another system." It's probably best to prefer and advise, rather than prescribe or proscribe. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK22:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any wording that accomplishes the same objective (following real-world usage) and can’t be gamed by the minority proponents of the IEC prefixes and the radical pro-SI minority is fine; the rest is just details. I think we’re all going to find that any wording that would really accomplish that end will be met with diversionary arguments by certain editors. And once it is posted to MOSNUM, it would further be met with wholesale deletions of the policy until it was so weak, it could be interpreted as permiting absolutely any practice any editor desires. We simply have to accept that we won’t get a buy-in from every editor if we do the right thing here. It’s simple: There is a preference for the SI and other modern units unless an industry or discipline consistently uses other units; in which case, follow current literature. Though the “oppose” crowd will argue that this is terribly complex (“what literature?”, “what is the subject of the article?”, “who is the readership?”, “is the difficulty level for a general-interest readership or for an expert readership?”), it’s not. Common sense works just fine. Greg L (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with following current literature
I'll try to explain in detail what I object to in the new "policy". The section starts with the following.
Use terminology and symbols commonly employed in the current literature for that subject and level of technicality. When in doubt, use the units of measure, prefixes, unit symbols, number notation, and methods of disambiguation most often employed in reliable periodicals directed to a similar readership.
Wikipedia is a general encyclopædia written for a general readership. Let us not start directing articles to this or that readership. Terminology and symbols used in current literature may well baffle the general reader. Often the unfamilar term or symbol can be simply explained or linked. Sometimes it would be better to rephrase.
What is the meaning of "When in doubt,"? Can we not do without this?
How are we to judge what constitutes that which is "most often employed in reliable periodicals". For any given topic there may be a huge amount of literature using a wide variety of units, prefixes, etc. What do we do when a the literature is dominated by publications from a certain country, group, organisation, etc. which uses its prefered units, abbreviations, etc. whilst another country, group, organisation, etc. uses a different set of perfectly valid set? This "policy" would have us quoting Albertan oil production figures in barrels per day even if our sources give their figures in cubic metres per day. Instead, why not simply tell editors to keep true to source figures giving conversions as appropriate?
The bit about prefixes obviously has its roots in the binary prefix war, however, (along with the rest of this "policy") it has grown beyond this to touch new ground. In discussions above there had been shown a feeling that we could do without the quasi-Roman-numeral/"short-scale" set of prefixes, {M, MM, B, T} (for {103, 106, 109, 1012}). This new "policy" runs counter to this encouraging these rather than banning them.
Similarly, in other discussions above a general feeling that "lb" and "kg" should be reserved for the units of mass not force was shown. There can be found in the literature examples which go against this rule. Again this "policy" will override this encouraging "kg/cm²" & "lb/in²" for pressure and "lb·ft" for torque.
Suppose an editor wants to ... (quick quiz: try guess what "Tcm" might mean before you click) ... convert "Tcm" to standard notation, is this policy going to be thrown at him?
Wikipedia’s mission is to communicate with minimal confusion so that readers can learn about a subject and are primed as well as possible to learn even more in their studies elsewhere. There are three important elements in determining what terminology and units of measure are best suited for a given article:
A minor point but the last sentence introduces this list as exhaustive whereas there may exist other important elements not yet considered. The easiest fix to this would be to delete the first letter of that second sentence.
Do we need a statement of "Wikipedia's mission" in this section? Indeed, is this our mission exactly? I do, of course, agree that we ought to communicate with minimal confusion. My concern is that this "policy" is likely to worsen things in this respect rather than make them better. Consistency within the encyclopædia minimises the confusion. The "policy" will put consistency with the outside literature above internal consistency.
Preference for modern units
Wikipedia generally prefers modern systems of measurement, such as the SI, over U.S. customary units or the imperial system. Unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, write “the auto weighs 1450 kg (3200 lb)”, not the reverse.
I support this, though, it might be useful to go into what other modern systems there are.
Discipline-specific practices
Wherever a discipline consistently uses its own units—either conventional or metric rather than SI—Wikipedia should mirror those practices so readers will be conversant and knowledgeable in the discipline. Editors should write…
“a 450 cc Honda motorcycle engine” and never “a 450 ml” or “450 cm3 Honda motorcycle engine”;
“Saudi Arabia exported 9.0 million barrels of crude”, but not “Saudi Arabia exported 1.43 million cubic meters of crude” (unless an article is about Canadian oil production or you are quoting a source that observes Canadian practices);
“a gravity gradient of 3.1 µGal/cm”, not “a gravity gradient of 3.1×10−6 s–2”, in the science of gravimetry.
The paragraph does not clearly distinguish between units and symbols/abbreviations. Barrels and cubic metres are different units. "cc" and "cm³" represent the same unit, they differ only in that one is the standard symbol and the other a non-standard abbreviation.
How are we to determine what is in consistant use? The crude oil example is enlightening. As noted, Canadians use cubic metres but they are not the only ones not to use the barrel (an American unit). The tonne is also widely used. Things are not as consistant as they might seem at first.
We don't need the detail about Canadian this and Canadian that—just reflect the source units.
Parenthetical conversions should be given where appropriate and should generally also follow the practices in current literature on that subject unless there is good reason to do otherwise. Often the conversions will be to modern systems. Even within the narrow discipline of piston engines in ground transportation, there is a range of permissible ways to show conversions; there is often no best way. For instance, writing "a 450 cc (450 cm3) motorcycle engine" is inappropriate even though it is in conformance with the SI. "The Ford 351 Cleveland engine had an actual displacement of 351.9 cubic inches (5,766 cc)” is appropriate for a historical, American-made engine. "The Dodge 5.7 L Hemi has a displacement of 5,654 cc (345.0 in3)" is appropriate for a modern, American-label engine that is classified in liters. But writing "the Ferrari Dino V12 engine has a displacement of 334.0 cubic inches" would be inappropriate in an article primarily about a European-made sports car.
This is a little vague. Exactly when does one do a conversion and to what? If it weren't for the good ol' Canadians with their heads screwed on well enough to ditch this barrel nonsense in favour of the cubic metre, would this policy force us not to give cubic metre conversions and to hell with us metricated folk? Is this policy going to the the favourite tool of the metric matyrs who go about removing metric conversions from articles?
Certainly a "conversion" from "cc" to "cm³" is inappropriate: these are the same unit. Moreover, I'd say that trivial conversion, such as those from millibars to kilopascals are likewise unecessary. By the way, writing "a 450 cc (450 cm3) motorcycle engine" is not in conformance with the SI since "cc" is not SI.
There have been occasions where standards bodies have proposed new units of measure to better adhere to the SI and/or to address ambiguities but the new units didn’t see widespread adoption. Because existing prefixed forms of the byte are ambiguous ("KB", for instance, can mean either 1024 or 1000 bytes depending on context), the IEC in 1999 released its IEC 60027-2 amendment, introducing new prefixes for bytes and bits, such as "kibibyte (KiB)", "kibibit (Kibit)", and "mebibyte (MiB)". However, the IEC prefixes have seen little real-world adoption and are therefore unfamiliar to the typical Wikipedia reader. In keeping with the principle of follow current literature, editors should use the conventional binary prefixes, such as "kilobyte (KB)" and "megabyte (MB)", for general-interest articles and clarify their meaning where necessary using familiar techniques (subject to "Binary prefixes", below).
Is that first sentence of any use? It doesn't appear to give us any instruction. Cut it. We see the words "unfamiliar to the typical Wikipedia reader" here—ironic seeing as this policy is about to open the flood-gates to more of the like ... or is this just my pet fear? This whole policy, I'm guessing, was first hatched as a means to get some acceptance for conventional binary prefixes. I'd be happy if that were as far as it went but now it seems to put in jeopardy conventional systems of units and unit notation.
Level of difficulty (Do not write over the heads of the readership)
For some topics, there are multiple modern systems of measurement to choose from but some would generally be unsuitable for use in articles directed to a general-interest readership. For instance, the Planck units would typically be suitable only for advanced articles directed to expert readers—for example, an article on the mathematics of black hole evaporation—whereas an article on black holes directed to a general-interest readership should describe their mass in terms of solar mass. Level of difficulty also applies to the decision as to whether or not scientific notation should be employed and at what point it should be begin (for values as low as one million?). Here again, editors should look towards current literature on that subject for guidance in selecting level-appropriate units of measure, unit symbols, number notation, and terminology.
This seems perhaps to be pointed in the right direction. I wonder whether the challenge of judging this level of difficulty will lead to more strife than the inclusion of this is worth.
That "level of difficulty" issue is merely one of a dozen different ways in which the proposal would cause more strife than it is worth. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your discussion, Jimp (what's the silly, incomprehensible symbols, some attempt at going incognito?) also touches on the biggest points of induced, unnecessary strife:
What is included in literature in this context?
What in literature is relevant? How is that determined in any particular case?
Among the relevant literature, what is included as being "current"?
Why is there an assumption in this discussion that whatever we determine to be relevant, current literature is going to be speaking with one voice? That seems highly unlikely to happen, so what happens when the relevant, current literature exhibits two or three or a dozen or more different usages? Part of the problem here, of course, is that when there is some other way in which the "literature" can be subdivided, you are going to have each side arguing that the other sides supporting literature is irrelevant on some other grounds (e.g., geography, medium, audience), and the vague, uncertain, and unpredictable proposals that have been put forth here leave lots of room for such claims and counterclaims. Gene Nygaard (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←Jimp's questions are good, and this is hard. A little research here would probably pay off big, if someone wants to do it. Some of Wikipedia's science articles are roughly on the level of Scientific American and other science-popularizing magazines in the audience they're trying to write to; that is, SciAm tries not to use too brutal an editorial policy with its contributors, because it needs them, and wants to show that it is "in the know" by using units appropriate to the various fields, while not interfering too much with comprehension. If we can show that our judgments calls are roughly in line with theirs, then this process becomes much less contentious (and most important to me, takes less of my time :). We would also be much more appealing to a wide range of scientists and scholars if we can reassure them that our rules on units have some kind of support in the wider scientific community. Does anyone have time to ask at WP:REFDESK for help from some people in library sciences? If you want to talk with journalists to get some answers, I've got some contacts, but I don't have time to follow this up myself. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've realized I have a hidden agenda here (not hidden now). My sense is that Tony is having a negative reaction because this all seems like a whole lot of discussion without any useful outcome in sight; I'm having a positive reaction because of the new blood, the cordiality and give-and-take, and many references to specific useful sources. This is a direction for MOSNUM that would lead to better results and to less work for everyone else who is in this for the long haul. Maybe we're both right, I don't know. I think what I am really after with asking people to find more and more authoritative sources that support their beliefs is to find out whether we're really on the right track here, or if Tony is right and this is taking more time than it's worth. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this proposal doesn't apply only to the "scientific community", does it? Do you think those are the only fields of human activity which uses units of measure?
And, in any case, how would you ensure that
Scientific American is considered relevant literature in this regard?
How would you do to give it some kind of priority for our use in this determination?
How far back do we go in determining its "current" usage?
What's the fallback when Scientific American usage cannot be determined?
Yes, all well-thought-through questions that underline why the text should never have been inserted in MOSNUM in the first place. The fact that no one was allowed even to place a dispute tag on it, let alone remove it to to the talk page—its rightful place for discussion—shows an arrogant, narky attitude by some people here. TONY(talk)14:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Red herrings, rather. Scientific American has been used as an example of a source in this discussion exactly once, as part of a long list of WP:reliable sources. These problems are met all over Wikipedia: Is X a reliable source? Is X a reliable source on this topic? Is it the most reliable source? Is this issue of X still current? If they are well-put objections here, then they are well-put objections everywhere, and WP is impossible. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with not following current literature is that it breaks one of the founding ideas of Wikipedia meaning that instead of directly reporting what our article sources say about a subject, writing articles then becomes a matter of an editor pushing a point of view about what system they think should be used. Which isn't what Wikipedia is about at all. Fnagaton15:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was using Scientific American as an example. Examination of units used in such a magazine, done either by the Scientific American editors themselves or by scholars or standards committees, might be helpful, because they face some of the same problems we face. The problems that, for instance, IEC faced are nothing like the problems we face. I have a feeling that many of us are agreed, despite the apparent differences: we're waiting to see if there's some kind of successful process here that is able to resolve itself, including reasoned arguments from provably relevant sources. If so, then we could probably maintain a high level of interest in the discussion. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that you're right there, Fnagaton. This proposal advises us to follow current literature. Now, assuming we could pin-point what that might be (something not necessarily all that simple) there could arrise an instance where our source uses a unit not commonly found in other publications on the topic. This policy, as it reads in its current (protected) form, would suggest we follow current literature inspite of the conflict with the source. All this hooplah could be so easily avoided by a simple rule to put the source value first and (a) conversion(s) in brackets where appropriate. We can point to a particular source and discuss whether it is reliable. We can clearly see what units are used in one particular source. It's much more difficult when we start attempting to talk about "the literature". Do we even need to when, in the end, we're going to follow the particular sources we've got making the conversions we believe useful to our readership, which we should pretty-much always be able to assume to be a general readership? JIMptalk·cont16:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a great deal of sense; it would be natural for historic discussions of units no longer in use ("Arago measured 18,765 toises (.. km; ... mi;)". It will answer for motorcycles too; the only problem is when two sources are speckled through an article, one using miles, the other kilometers. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly desirable not to lose the units as given in the source; they should be somewhere so that we can decide for ourselves how many significant digits were intended, and check whether there were conversion errors. But if someone's source gave the area in acres, should we say "X acres (Y sq ft, Z m2)"? Or should all original units that aren't one of the two recommended units for the text all be lumped together in a footnote? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Random crazy suggestion: Imagine a magic conversion that takes as input the source value in source units (with all significant figures quoted by the source) plus a number of significant figures to be displayed, and displays as output only the converted value. In other words the script "convertsourceunits(X,acres,2)" would appear to the reader "Z m2 (Y sq ft)", rounded to 2 significant figures. That would retain the source information for posterity while at the same time presenting a uniform format to the reader. But is it realisable? Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with "x miles (y km)" and "a kilometres (b mi)"'s being used interchangeably within an article. Others would prefer consistency, in which case choose whichever seems best suited to the article and swap some of the conversions around noting the switch with ref tags. In general I'd prefer the original units to be in the main text rather than in footnotes ... or usually even in brackets. The magic conversion is very realisable ... the idea has been suggested before. It seems a good idea ... quite useful. It'll probably be coming in the not too distant future. JIMptalk·cont17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"All this hooplah could be so easily avoided by a simple rule to put the source value first and (a) conversion(s) in brackets where appropriate." - It doesn't solve the problem in all situations though. Who decides what is a suitable conversion? If it is left to the editor of an article then that still allows for the editor to push their personal opinion about what they think. Now in the specific case of the IEC prefixes they are not at all widely used in the real world. They are unfamiliar to the majority of our readership. There already exist, in the real world, other methods to disambiguate non-IEC prefixes (I'll call non-IEC prefixes "JEDEC prefixes" because they appear in the JEDEC standard). For example specifying the exact number of bytes is commonly used in displays regarding file and disk sizes. The question is, what better serves the average reader that articles are targeted towards? Using unfamiliar IEC prefixes isn't going to help the reader as much as using other methods that are already commonly found in the real world. The argument that IEC prefixes can be Wikilinked is missing the point because it's not the place of Wikipedia to advocate something that is unfamiliar and not widely used. The argument that Wikilinking teaches the reader something is also missing the point because if our sources used in articles think IEC prefixes should be taught then we as article writers can report that, otherwise trying to force something that is opposite to the real world sources we use is promoting an artificial view of that world we are meant to be reporting without bias. Common sense, right? Fnagaton17:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think by placing something along similar lines in the guideline it can help mitigate a lot of the POV pushing that can happen and still be flexible enough to allow IEC prefixes for those rare articles that need to report them. This helps article writers by giving them obvious guidance in the form of the guideline and then in turn this helps the reader who is going to be reading the articles. Fnagaton18:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of what you're writing here is common sense—unfamiliar terms/units/symbols/abbreviations/etc. are not what we need—but I don't see this proposal more help than hinderence in this respect. We, as a whole, decide what's appropriate. Consensus has shown that conversions between metric and customary units are generally desireable. Exceptions will exist but these can generally be sorted out on a case-by-case basis. Instead, will be find editors debating over what "the literature" uses ... what constitutes this "literature"? JIMptalk·cont18:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too worried about the metric and customary aspect, I think generally it's fine but that's because I'm not exposed on a daily basis to articles related to that subject. OK I've seen some articles where they talk about World War II guns and someone thought it would be "an excellent idea" (i.e. it's not a good idea in reality) to change the measurements into metric, making the article completely opposite to all the sources used on that subject. It's just that I think computer memory and computer storage are large enough topics and POV pushing about IEC prefixes happens often enough that instead of it being "an exception" a guideline should give specific guidance about not using unfamiliar units unless specifically and obviously used by the majority of sources relevant to the article. Fnagaton18:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you probably have a different notion of "literature" than most people are going to use in the interminable arguments. And, going back to what Jimp said above in discussing the "current (protected) form", I just want to make sure that everybody involved understands that the "protection" is not supposed to be any endorsement whatsoever of that form; I'm sure Jimp was just being clear in his identification of what he was talking about, but I want that point made clear here. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fnagaton that the IEC binary prefixes need to be covered totally independently of this proposal. (It isn't like they are something never used outside Wikipedia, either—it is perfectly legitimate for our house rules to require them, or not to.) Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to elaborate on one of my objections to "follow current literature". Sometimes measurement units are a consensus-driven process (that is, consensus on the level of the world, a nation, or a disipline). Other times it is legislated. (In today's world, there is no such thing as world-wide legislation; only nations or groups of nations (like the E.U.) pass legislation that can actually be enforced on the ground.) It would be wrong for Wikipedia to ignore this distinction. Wikipedia editors should use the units required by legislation, if applicable, even if the current literature is slow to adopt them. This argument does not apply to voluntary standards, such as the IEC binary prefixes. Although Wikipedia is practically immune to weights and measures laws, because we don't sell anything, our readers are not. We should not encourage those of our readers who sell stuff to violate the law. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If, and only if, we are explaining the legislation. Otherwise we run into the same problems that we always have with official usage: Does the legislation apply at this place and time? Whose legislation should we follow in the case of an article not limited to one country or to the EU? Is the term in the legislation known to our readership, and will it communicate anything to them? We are written for general readers, not for lawyers.
The proposal is just an extension of the current "In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic." What is the correct "scientific literature" to follow? -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. As you say, it has a similar problem for editors. It was simpler for editors when it provided a default and said:
In scientific articles, SI units are the main units of measure, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to use them (for example, Hubble's constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s−1)
The problem is the absence of a default. An editor should not be required to study an entire set of literature before making a single edit. I propose that the wording matches the previous bullets about UK and US units as follows:
For science-related articles, the main units are SI units.
Consulting the literature begins, and will usually end, with checking the source from which the measurement comes. If other editors come with extensive citations from standard sources all using a different system, then and only then do we do our own conversion. This is not difficult.
I'd have said misused or abused. That's why I prefer wording that's permissive, suggesting or recommending choices rather than directing them. WP:IGNORE kicks in anyway, so we may as well face it up front in crafting the guideline. The WP MOS doesn't prevent anyone from using any style they choose, unlike that of an academic journal or newspaper, where editors perform a gatekeeper function. Here, "anyone can edit".LeadSongDog (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I am beginning to change my view of what you mean by consulting literature. The worry of many people is that each editor is required to study an entire set of literature for each edit. Are you saying that 'Put the source value first and the converted value second' should be the starting point? Lightmouse (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the only reason to check more widely is if someone says: "Wait a second, your source is eccentric; look at this work of general reference which uses a different unit. Please don't confuse our readers." Then we survey; once we've surveyed we stick with the result. (If the editor knows the literature, then she should use her knowledge of it to begin with.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with putting the source unit first and conversions second. This one straight-forward rule could ... should replace both Which system to use and Follow current literature pretty much in their entirety. However, this is not how I read Greg's "the literature" nor is it how I believe others will read it nor how i think he intended it. JIMptalk·cont18:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source unit first should be mandatory in direct quotes (and the conversion should be in square brackets rather than parentheses, to show it was added by the editor.) If the measurement is the only one of its kind in an article, it would also be fine to give the source unit first. But when many similar measurements occur in an article, and they come from many different sources, the same unit should be given first for the sake of consistency. This is especially important in tables. I recognize the argument that there is less likely to be round-off errors if source unit is given first, but this isn't usually important in encyclopedia articles. If the exact values are unusually important, this is only a guideline; the article can depart from the guideline as necessary to give proper emphasis to exact values. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should acknowledge that there is not One guideline to bind them all. Consistency is just one of several competing desires. Lightmouse (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Day 5: for how long will this important page be frozen?
The page should be unfrozen and the disputed text—which clearly does not have consensus (not in its current form, anyway)—should be pasted HERE, where it should have remained. That way, you people can argue over it in an appropriate place and there will be no trouble on the project page itself. That is what talk pages are for. TONY(talk)09:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this is tedious. I'm not talking about specific arguments I myself might have, for or against. I'm referring to the lack of consensus, which is obvious above. If you and your crowd fail to agree that the disputed text should be removed from the project page until a consensus is achieved, I don't see how the page can be unfrozen. Yes, I agree that some form of guideline is necessary WRT to the topic of the text that was prematurely shoved into the project page, and I don't necessarily disagree with all of that text; but I do have qualms with some of it, and have explicated this above. TONY(talk)12:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because some people have voted "oppose" it doesn't mean there is a lack of consensus because those oppose votes are using reasons that are refuted/fallacious/weak when compared to the arguments for the "support" votes. Your argument about the process of the consensus reached, for example, is refuted by the comments on this page (and the village pump) by other editors, yet you still continue to have an existing oppose vote logged. As for unblocking the page, since you did earlier state "as soon as the page is unfrozen, I and others will quite justifiably start hacking into the bits" then no, I don't think the page should be unblocked if you're going to be making edits without consensus. Fnagaton13:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fnagaton, the "oppose" voters are not doing so by ignoring the arguments. We happen to think the "support" votes are using reasons that are refuted/fallacious/weak when compared to the arguments for the "oppose" votes. Each position is simply our, and their, opinion. There is no absolute fact on either side. Jeh (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct because the weak oppose vote arguments are refuted by the stronger arguments, this is demonstrated, for example, by the counter arguments presented at the village pump and the comments on this page by uninvolved editors. What this means is that there are no substantive oppose vote arguments left. i.e. there are no oppose vote arguments that have not been refuted. Fnagaton15:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff at the Village Pump had only to do with the consensus process. The fact that "MB" is ambiguous, and for precision must be disambiguated at every use, remains unrefuted, even supported by an overwhelming majority at previous straw polls. Jeh (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a red herring because it mentions something that doesn't tackle the issue being discussed. This is because the current guideline text does already state "existing prefixed forms of the byte are ambiguous" followed by "clarify their meaning where necessary using familiar techniques" which refutes the need to make such a comment in the first place. It is like me saying "The sky is blue, that remains unrefuted" and then presenting that, like the comment above did, as if it somehow supports an oppose vote. For the avoidance of doubt the statement "The fact that "MB" is ambiguous, and for precision must be disambiguated at every use, remains unrefuted" is irrelevant and does not support an oppose vote. Fnagaton15:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on the recent improvements in the level of civility here. Please let's keep it up. May I remind editors that Protected is not the same as "Frozen". If there are partial changes that have concensus, they can be implemented using the {{EditProtected}} template. LeadSongDog (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Significant numbers of users clearly do not think much of the arguments in favour of the text. Simply asserting again and again that one side has strong arguments and the other side has weak arguments will get us nowhere. LeadDog, that mechanism is hardly applicable when the text was inserted without consensus in the first place. This will become a key issue when the page is unblocked: the text should be removed and discussed here in the proper way. That is due process. TONY(talk)15:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the same refuted or weak arguments will not get us anywhere, i.e. it is unreasonable to exepect refuted or weak arguments to be accepted as part of the guideline. Consensus and compromise does not mean having to accept every single weak refuted argument and minority point of view. A way forward is for those using refuted or weak arguments to produce much more substantive arguments or to let the process continue without obstruction. The claim the text was added without consensus and without due process has already been refuted by the comments on this page and at the village pump. As Francis Schonken wrote earlier "Yes the procedure was somewhat unusual. Nothing inappropriate or whatever though, congratulations!" and the opinion of Francis matters because they are an uninvolved admin. Again, consensus does not need an individual to agree when that individual does not provide substantive argument or provides argument that has already been refuted. Fnagaton15:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NIce try Tony. There is no question about it; the only thing that would happen if those who support the new guideline showed goodwill and allowed it to be stripped out of MOSNUM and worked on here is nothing would be agreed upon and nothing accomplished. The intransigence of the proponents of the IEC prefixes and the wild extreme fringes of the proponents of the SI would block all progress towards following the common-sense practices observed by the rest of the world. All they have to do is dig in their heels. This isn’t a failure to “assume good faith” on my part—that policy doesn’t require that people suspend common sense!
All general-interest magazines and all encyclopedias routinely communicate to their readerships without relying upon units of measure that the typical Wikipedia reader doesn’t recognize and will not likely encounter in the real world after leaving Wikipedia. And yet those who would delete this common-sense guideline still insist on doing it their own way. The result is that one article on Wikipedia uses entirely different terminology than another and this just makes Wikipedia look foolish.
What part of “There are now ten archives dedicated exclusively to battles over the IEC prefixes” don’t you understand? As Rilak said, “[the] binary units of measurement, KB, MB, GB, etc. are here to stay regardless of whatever efforts to change them.” It’s time to get real and deal with this entire, broad issue to bring Wikipedia in line with the rest of the world. The only possible way that can happen is when the guideline stays in MOSNUM as is (no edit warring over there) and a green-div version is worked on here. Any other way and I absolutely guarantee you that there will be a B20 archive before something is finally done about this. Greg L (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is even more obvious that there is no consensus for always use SI. Therefore the former text does not represent consensus, and should not be reverted to. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony: To answer your rhetorical question posed by your choice for this section heading, MOSNUM protection will end when editors no longer behave as you threatened earlier (“I will never agree to (blah blah)…”, and how the moment the page becomes unfrozen, you will instantly start unilaterally “hacking” away at it), and we agree to work collaboratively on Fourth draft, below, in good faith and actually accomplish something constructive. Nothing will have been accomplished if all the above becomes the “B11” archive and we immediately have to go to a “B12” archive (and B13, B14… etc.). Greg L (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following red-div section is a reference version to start with. Please make edits to Fourth draft, below.
Follow current literature
Use terminology and symbols commonly employed in the current literature for that subject and level of technicality. When in doubt, use the units of measure, prefixes, unit symbols, number notation, and methods of disambiguation most often employed in reliable periodicals directed to a similar readership.
Wikipedia’s mission is to communicate with minimal confusion so that readers can learn about a subject and are primed as well as possible to learn even more in their studies elsewhere. There are three important elements in determining what terminology and units of measure are best suited for a given article:
Preference for modern units
Wikipedia generally prefers modern systems of measurement, such as the SI, over U.S. customary units or the imperial system. Unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, write “the auto weighs 1450 kg (3200 lb)”, not the reverse.
Discipline-specific practices
Wherever a discipline consistently uses its own units—either conventional or metric rather than SI—Wikipedia should mirror those practices so readers will be conversant and knowledgeable in the discipline. Editors should write…
“a 450 cc Honda motorcycle engine” and never “a 450 ml” or “450 cm3 Honda motorcycle engine”;
“Saudi Arabia exported 9.0 million barrels of crude”, but not “Saudi Arabia exported 1.43 million cubic meters of crude” (unless an article is about Canadian oil production or you are quoting a source that observes Canadian practices);
“a gravity gradient of 3.1 µGal/cm”, not “a gravity gradient of 3.1×10−6 s–2”, in the science of gravimetry.
Parenthetical conversions should be given where appropriate and should generally also follow the practices in current literature on that subject unless there is good reason to do otherwise. Often the conversions will be to modern systems. Even within the narrow discipline of piston engines in ground transportation, there is a range of permissible ways to show conversions; there is often no best way. For instance, writing "a 450 cc (450 cm3) motorcycle engine" is inappropriate even though it is in conformance with the SI. "The Ford 351 Cleveland engine had an actual displacement of 351.9 cubic inches (5,766 cc)” is appropriate for a historical, American-made engine. "The Dodge 5.7 L Hemi has a displacement of 5,654 cc (345.0 in3)" is appropriate for a modern, American-label engine that is classified in liters. But writing "the Ferrari Dino V12 engine has a displacement of 334.0 cubic inches" would be inappropriate in an article primarily about a European-made sports car.
There have been occasions where standards bodies have proposed new units of measure to better adhere to the SI and/or to address ambiguities but the new units didn’t see widespread adoption. Because existing prefixed forms of the byte are ambiguous ("KB", for instance, can mean either 1024 or 1000 bytes depending on context), the IEC in 1999 released its IEC 60027-2 amendment, introducing new prefixes for bytes and bits, such as "kibibyte (KiB)", "kibibit (Kibit)", and "mebibyte (MiB)". However, the IEC prefixes have seen little real-world adoption and are therefore unfamiliar to the typical Wikipedia reader. In keeping with the principle of follow current literature, editors should use the conventional binary prefixes, such as "kilobyte (KB)" and "megabyte (MB)", for general-interest articles and clarify their meaning where necessary using familiar techniques (subject to "Binary prefixes", below).
Level of difficulty(Do not write over the heads of the readership)
For some topics, there are multiple modern systems of measurement to choose from but some would generally be unsuitable for use in articles directed to a general-interest readership. For instance, the Planck units would typically be suitable only for advanced articles directed to expert readers—for example, an article on the mathematics of black hole evaporation—whereas an article on black holes directed to a general-interest readership should describe their mass in terms of solar mass. Level of difficulty also applies to the decision as to whether or not scientific notation should be employed and at what point it should be begin (for values as low as one million?). Here again, editors should look towards current literature on that subject for guidance in selecting level-appropriate units of measure, unit symbols, number notation, and terminology.
The following green-div section is a “live” version for making proposals on. Please don’t do edit warring here. Discuss your proposals and edits in Discussion of “Fourth draft”, below.
Let’s not treat the fourth draft as so sacrosanct; that’s what this is here for: a sandbox. If someone has what they think is a good idea, toss it out there for others to look at. And don’t be defensive if someone replaces it with something else; we always have the red-div for reference. If someone is considering trying an edit they really know would be unhelpful and they know full well that the edit would be strongly opposed, don’t bother. Give & take. If someone has what they think is a truly bright idea that will gain consensus, add it to the below green-div ASAP. If everyone embraces the philosophy that they will only make edits intended to be one-and-a-half steps forward and only a half step backward (greater consensus with each move), this may go smoother. That’s my 2¢. Greg L (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow current literature
Use terminology and symbols commonly employed in the current literature for that subject and level of technicality. When in doubt, use the units of measure, prefixes, unit symbols, number notation, and methods of disambiguation most often employed in reliable periodicals directed to a similar readership.
The objective of technical writing is to communicate with minimal confusion so that readers can learn about a subject and are primed as well as possible to learn even more in their studies elsewhere. There are three important elements in determining what terminology and units of measure are best suited for a given article:
Preference for international units
Wikipedia generally prefers international systems of measurement, such as the SI, over U.S. customary units or the imperial system. Unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, write "He was 1.83 meters (6 foot) tall", not the reverse.
Discipline-specific practices
Wherever a discipline consistently uses its own units—either conventional or non-SI metric—this should be followed, since our readers should be able to converse with those knowledgeable in the discipline. For example:
“a 450 cc Honda motorcycle engine” and never “a 450 ml” or “450 cm3 Honda motorcycle engine”;
“Saudi Arabia exported 9.0 million barrels of crude”, but not “Saudi Arabia exported 1.43 million cubic meters of crude”;
“a gravity gradient of 3.1 µGal/cm”, not “a gravity gradient of 3.1×10−6 s–2”, in the science of gravimetry.
Parenthetical conversions should be given where appropriate and should generally also follow the practices in current literature on that subject unless there is good reason to do otherwise. Often the conversions will be to modern systems. To retain accuracy when quoting sources, editors should generally use the units used by your cited source as the primary value for that particular measurement. The units to choose for parenthetical conversion througout an article is highly dependent on the subject matter. Even within the narrow discipline of piston engines in ground transportation, there is a range of permissible ways to show conversions; there is often no best way. For instance, writing "a 450 cc (450 cm3) motorcycle engine" is inappropriate even though it is in conformance with the SI; simply linking the first instance of “cc” to the Cubic centimeter article is sufficient. Writing "the Ford 351 Cleveland engine had an actual displacement of 351.9 cubic inches (5,766 cc)” is appropriate for a historical, American-made engine. And writing "the Dodge 5.7 L Hemi has a displacement of 5,654 cc (345.0 in3)" is appropriate for a modern, American-label engine that is classified in liters. But writing "the Ferrari Dino V12 engine has a displacement of 334.0 cubic inches" would be inappropriate in an article primarily about a European-made sports car.
There have been occasions where standards bodies have proposed new units of measure to better adhere to the SI and/or to address ambiguities but the new units didn’t see widespread adoption. Because existing prefixed forms of the byte are ambiguous ("KB", for instance, can mean either 1024 or 1000 bytes depending on context), the IEC in 1999 released its IEC 60027-2 amendment, introducing new prefixes for bytes and bits, such as "kibibyte (KiB)", "kibibit (Kibit)", and "mebibyte (MiB)". However, the IEC prefixes have seen little real-world adoption and are therefore unfamiliar to the typical Wikipedia reader. In keeping with the principle of follow current literature, editors should use the conventional binary prefixes, such as "kilobyte (KB)" and "megabyte (MB)", for general-interest articles and clarify their meaning where necessary using familiar techniques (subject to "Binary prefixes", below).
Level of difficulty(Do not write over the heads of the readership)
For some topics, there are multiple modern systems of measurement to choose from but some would generally be unsuitable for use in articles directed to a general-interest readership. For instance, the Planck units would typically be suitable only for advanced articles directed to expert readers—for example, an article on the mathematics of black hole evaporation—whereas an article on black holes directed to a general-interest readership should describe their mass in terms of solar mass. Level of difficulty also applies to the decision as to whether or not scientific notation should be employed in an article and, if so, at what magnitude it should begin. Here again, editors should look towards current literature on that subject for guidance in selecting level-appropriate units of measure, unit symbols, number notation, and terminology.
Figure of merit
Clearly, it is unrealistic to expect that wording for Fourth draft, above, can be found that will make all parties to this discussion happy; some editors’ views are polar opposites of another. The best we can do here is track how editors feel about this and endeavor to maximize the total score of support. Any edits that yields more points of support than it takes away should be considered as progress. Greg L (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to point out the possible meaninglessness of voting on a document that can change at any time. If Jim, Bob, and Olga vote on this today. Tomorrow johnny edits, then Johnny votes, as well as Onésiphore, Paul and Abdul Nassim. Vote is not accurate, because people voted on different things. My vote goes for the fourth draft version that was displayed when I voted. See signature time. I'll try to keep my vote up to date. [[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]]) 04:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that rapid and radical editing could make it quite challenging to keep one’s vote current. Hopefully, chaos won’t reign supreme and we can adapt to the minor challenges. Greg L (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe make the proposal text a sub-page to make it easier to put a watch on it? Then somehow include the sub-page inline with this page? I seem to remember it being done on one of the admin pages but can't for the life of me remember where exactly. Fnagaton23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve never seen it done before but recognized the need for that capability and was wondering if the tools were available to pull it off. Why not? Greg L (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At 8:3 in favor and no new “oppose” votes in over two days, there is clearly a general consensus in support of this guideline. Further, the arguments of the “oppose” votes simply are either in the minority, or are fallacious and can’t realistically be considered as a legitimate basis for maintaining a {dispute} tag, which has been removed.Greg L (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think SOME of the arguments of the "support" votes are fallacious and have been refuted soundly. So there. Why does your opinion rule? Jeh (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeh, this policy was extensively debated, crafted, and tweaked for a very long time. Yes, as you surmised per your vote comment, your vote doesn’t really matter now because voting ended. After the first three “oppose” votes came in, no new ones were posted in over two days whereas “support” votes were still coming in. Circumstances have changed radically; potential “support” voters now have no reason whatsoever to post their vote since Follow current literature is now posted to MOSNUM. Not surprisingly, some “oppose” voters—like yourself—will continue to register their opposition to Follow current literature. While this affects the tally, it can’t and mustn’t change the outcome because the tally only becomes increasingly skewed due to the entirely different expectations and motivations for editors to continue voting or not. Nevertheless, your vote is still welcome since it was accompanied by your views on the matter. Greg L (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, extensively debated - with you declaring that all views opposing yours were invalid or had been refuted, and even telling objectors not to bother trying to change the proposal because any such changes would be quickly reverted. That's not a debate and it is not inviting of the proper process. No wonder so many objectors have gone away. For myself, I've been travelling a lot for work, and prepping for more travel, and I simply haven't had time to notify other past participants in the binary prefix discussion -- the way you did some of them. I may have time before the weekend... I think two days of relative inactivity is hardly sufficient to declare "end of debate" on a discussion that's gone on for months. Further, I am aghast at your claim that further discussion or votes "mustn't change the outcome." It seems to me that by your rules (and why are we operating by your rules, anyway?), consensus can change (see WP:CON, but only until GregL declares the discussion is over? You know, I would accept such a conclusion from an impartial moderator, but you are hardly an impartial participant in this matter. Jeh (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is not proper debate is posting up another "hate it" vote without providing substantive argument. We've already had impartial editors come along and say there exists good enough consensus i.e. there are no substantive reasons preventing the guideline text from being used. See [1] and [2]. Fnagaton07:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeh: “…and even telling objectors not to bother trying to change the proposal because any such changes would be quickly reverted.” Pasture pancakes. Extensive discussion occurred and countless edits—by me and others—were made. They were all good-faith edits. Only disruptive “edits” (wholesale deletions of entire portions) that weren’t seriously intended to ever be accepted by the majority were rejected out of hand and reverted. You seem to have missed out on a lot of the goings on here while you were away. You really should have familiarized yourself with the facts before wasting 0.0001¢ of Wikipedia’s hard drive storage space. When you begin an argument with totally fallacious charges, I tune out the rest of your arguments; they aren’t worthy of the time to refute them. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^This table is a good idea. The fourth draft is fine by me also.
^The fundamental principles conveyed so far are perfect IMO. So long as the details do a good job of demonstrating and supporting the principles, I’m happy. Greg L (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
^ In the light of Dfmclean's latest comments Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Why nanometers and not angstroms?, I revise my vote to 3. The greenbox could clarify that readability is preferred over consistency with literature in the case of trivial conversions like this one. I am ambivalent on this aspect, but fully supportive of the others.
^ That discussion also showed how easy it would be to settle the issue. I'm changing back my vote to a 4.
^ Not, I suppose, that it matters. I've been busy the last few days. Now I see GregL has declared "consensus." But I strongly disagree with putting IEC prefixes in as an example. I also strongly disagree with the whole notion that MOSNUM "policy" should, on a project-wide basis, be able to override expert editors' judgement and consensus on individual articles. If a consensus of editors on a given article agree on a set of units for that article, so be it.
^a very problematic proposal which could well lead to many arguements and inconsistencies along with an influx of perplexing non-standard terms, units and abbreviations—JIMptalk·cont 17:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
^I actually agree with much of what Jimp had to say (somewhere on this page), however, I feel that there are situations where discipline specific units and abbreviations are standard/well known in that discipline like cc in automotive and medical fields; hectares in real estate, mbar in weather, and barrels of oil. And just because we have this policy does not mean that we shouldn't convert to m³, acres, inHg, or whatever.
^While I feel that this draft can perhaps be better refined in regards to some units of measurement, I support it as I believe that this is a good step towards an encyclopedia where the usage of units is consistent. ~~~~
^It's premature to remove that 'disputed' tag; the present wording will end up in Balkanisation of units and endless disputes over what counts as "current literature"
Comments on “Vote comments”
This section is intended to provide a forum for rebutting and commenting on the above vote comments. This is in hopes of keeping the above Vote comments short and pithy. Greg L (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony's vote:
I was kinda surprised to have a vote at 0 when we had three at 4, and I wondered how in the world could someone be in complete opposition to this. So I decided to review Tony's comment to see what his objections were. Here are his objections:
Doesn't like the title "Follow current litterature"
I guess that could warrant a 3 rather than a 4, because that would be something that could be improved. But that's certainly not a reason for complete opposition, especially since he did not seem to think that the the first and third draft were not completely off track.
Someone edited the MoS text without going through the talk page first.
Now this, while regrettable, and that we could have a circle jerk about how that's not how one should do things, it has very little to do with what we're doing now. We're on the talk page debating what should go in the MoS. So this objection, if one might call it that was addressed. So that cannot be the reason.
There is no consensus/unclear whether or not consensus/can't find consensus.
Well that's what we're trying to see with this vote, so that cannot possibly be an objection.
And then out of the blue we have very explosive remarks from someone who up until this point appeared to have been arguing constructively with concern that consensus was reached etc... remarks such as
Your "rah rah" attitude makes me want to puke. Can't you see that as soon as the page is unfrozen, I and others will quite justifiably start hacking into the bits that are unacceptable, including contraventions of MOS and bloated, irrelevant, inappropriate statements. That's what should happen on the talk page, not the project page. So there will be insability on the project page: you and your self-congratulatory football lackies will be entirely to blame for that. Or you can do the proper thing, and post it HERE so we can get agreement on the wording. This idea of "rough" consensus serves absolutely no purpose.
If we forgive the explosive remarks, insults and the threats of unilaterally editing the MoS (something pretty weird for someone who insisted on having consensus, but that could still be appropriate if the edits were reverts and not actual edits so let's give benefit of the doubt on that), the objections still seem to be that consensus wasn't reach. But again we're having a vote to see what the support for the green box is, so voting "no" on the grounds that there is no consensus for the green box seems rather weird. So that cannot be the reason.
Continuing with some more objections:
Text appeared to be aimed towards students
Was addressed by Greg L, mentioning that people who go on Wikipedia go to learn things, hence the "continue their studies" where "studies" did not mean "academic studies". I guess this would also warrant a 3, but to think that is a reason for complete opposition is a strech of the imagination
Text encourages PMAnderson to write badly.
Wikipedia will survive if PM Anderson fails to get the "Tony's Barnstar of quality writing" on his user page. I'm sure Tony will agree that Wikipedia's survival does not depends on people getting that barnstar, but rather on achieving consensus between the editors that care about Wikipedia, so this cannot be the reason why Tony is in complete opposition to the text.
So unless I'm missing something here, perhaps Tony gave a reason for his complete opposition but someone deleted it, perhaps the he clicked on the submit button and subsequently X'd his window before the submit had a chance to go through, I think Tony made a mistake and X'ed a checkbox he didn't mean to X. It would be doing a disfavor to all the other editors who worked hard on this proposal, including Tony, to count his vote as it stands now. I'm sure Tony will check the checkbox he meant to check very soon, or will provide us with the reasons of his opposition. [[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]) 15:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your analysis Headbomb. I was thinking “I still can’t figure out what Tony’s specific problem is” and was coming here to address that subject. I see I’m not alone.
To Tony (and Lightmouse): Let’s set aside issues over how this guideline got here. Let’s set aside the details of the examples used to support the broad principle. The policy in its totality, basically boils down to this:
Wikipedia broadly prefers the SI and other international and modern systems of measurement except for those rare exceptions (European and Japanese motorcycle engines in cc, for instance) where a discipline consistently uses other units. In those cases, editors should use the units used in current literature on that subject.
Do you disagree with the basic principle of the guideline? Your zero-point vote would suggest you oppose even the basic principle. If so, why? Greg L (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Jimp: So… when you wrote in your vote summary “a very problematic proposal which could well lead to many arguements and inconsistencies along with an influx of perplexing non-standard terms, units and abbreviations”, you must mean that it will lead to “inconsistencies” worse that what we have now, where one computer article on Wikipedia uses “MiB” and other uses “MB”; a problem this policy addresses. Or by “arguments”, you seem to be implying that the current situation, where there are ten archives (and counting) dedicated just to bickering over the IEC prefixes and that is a good thing. Is that right? But by “perplexing, non-standard terms”, I assume you must mean some editors’ continued use of units of measure no one is familiar with, which this policy addresses. Is that right? Or is it that you really like these unwise practices but you just can’t find a rational argument to oppose an obviously good policy? Greg L (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, your wording reads as if I haven't made my position clear enough. My short and pithy vote comments were more or less a summary of what I've been saying all along. Surely you don't have to guess what I must mean. Surely you don't need to assume what I'm refering to. Surely what I seem to be implying is that which I've stated in black and white numerous times on the page ... even to the point of starting a whole section. However, in case I really have yet to make my point clear enough, I'll try put it forth again.
One thing I'll make clear is that I'm not focusing on binary prefixes but trying to glimpse the wider picture. Whereas this policy was crafted to address inconsistencies amongst computer articles (and I'm sure it might help in that area) it has grown beyond this scope to involve a significant section of the encyclopædia. All articles are being asked to swallow the medicine prescribed for the computer articles. Do we resolve the binary prefix battle by declaring war on the entire encyclopædia? At this rate there will be no Archive B11, no, it's gone global. The bickering continues: it's right here. I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel on this. Ten pages of archives on this fight should be a good indication that there may never be a solution yet instead of containing it, the fight is broadened in scope. No B11 but there will be a 98, 99, 100 ... But not only here but all over the place you'll be likely to see arguments anout the interpretation of this policy, about what constitues the literature, about the worth of Google searches.
The inconsistencies in multiples of the byte are likely to give way to inconsistencies amongst all units. Some articles will be refering to a particular unit one way others will be refering to the same unit another way. Kilopascals here millibars there, "cc" here "cm³" there, "psi" here "lb/in²" there, micrometres here microns there, nanometres here ångströms there, "cu in" here "CID" there, "km³" here "BCM" there. A great variety of units will be involved ... yes, this is worse.
Yes, by perplexing, non-standard terms, I mean the use of units of measure no one is familiar with (e.g. the gal, the ångström, the micron, etc.) along with unfamiliar, non-standard and confusing (e.g. "TCF", "lb·ft", "MBTU", etc.), which this policy could be used to endorse.
If the proposal obviously seemed good to me, I'd not be looking for arguments to oppose it, I'd be all for it ... obviously. I've given my arguments against the proposal, if you wish to label them as irrational, you're free to do so.
And to all: This isn’t some sort of contest where opposing editors game the system with zero points trying to keep the point count low and obstruct progress. You can’t obstruct progress; it will go forward regardless, along with those who are have recently hopped on board and have been working in good faith on this. The point system was added here to serve as a gauge of progress. It is already understood that some editors simply think the IEC prefixes are a great idea (even though the rest of the real world doesn’t use them) and they’ll never come on board. It is already recognized that some editors are so smitten with the SI, they oppose the use of non-SI units even though they are standard in the discipline and the BIPM approved their use with the SI. We understand that there will simply be no bringing these editors on board. If opposing editors don’t go with the flow and try work collaboratively with the rest of us to develop wording that better puts Wikipedia in alignment with the rest of the world’s encyclopedias and books, then you’re going to miss out on an opportunity to help craft the final product that goes to MOSNUM for good. Greg L (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, with due respect, it is not up to you to decide whether this "progress" will go forward. Progress requires consensus, which has not been demonstrated. Regardless of its intended purpose, this point system clearly shows that lack of consensus. Let us not be so quick to dismiss the editor who simply will not be brought on board. Let us also not take it as a given that this proposal will go on MOSNUM for good. JIMptalk·cont06:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thunderbird, there is no point trying to game the system by pretending to be on the fence and remaining silent on this issue until it’s too late. It’s clear what the general consensus is. A ridiculous extremist movement that is clearly in the minority can’t forever undermine the effect of the guideline by insisting that since they oppose this, it should be saddled with a {disputed} tag. It is clear that there is a general consensus in support. Greg L (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly likely that you are User:NotSarenne and “217.87…” who are one in the same and trace to Germany. You are banned for life.User:Sarenne, by the way, originates in France. It also appears you are now using Internet tricks to masquerade as users using I.P.s in China and Russia. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia. Everything you do here is unwelcome. Greg L (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, I'm not sure that refering to your opposition as a "ridiculous extremist movement" is such a helpful way of going about things. I can acknowledge that your position has its strengths. What I perceive to be its weaknesses I've attempted to address in a rational fashion. I'm arguing for consistency across the encyclopædia. I'm arguing that, for the sake of comprehensibility, conversions (be they metric, imperial, US customary, nautical) should generally be provided regardless of what happens outside of Wikipedia. However, there will be instances where no conversion should be given, e.g. don't provide "conversions" from millibars to hectopascals (nor kilopascals) ... but inches of mercury would be fine. I'm not opposed to the notion of looking to outside literature to give us an idea of what to do. What I'm uneasy with is the idea that we should do willy-nilly (... more nilly than willy for me) whatever we seem to find out there. Is that so ridiculous? Is that so extreme? Is that a minority view? Only one thing seems clear in this issue: there is no consensus. There never has been. The disputed tag states nothing but the fact that there is no general consensus in support or in opposition. You would have the tag removed, how about removing the section, which was insterted without ever gaining consensus? JIMptalk·cont00:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to side with Jimp's on this. Not only is refering to the "other side" as a "ridiculous extremist movement" doesn't help anything, but it also neglects that the points raised by the "opposition" are valid. I just don't feel the points raised are a big enough hinderance to stop us from moving forward with the version we have now, but it could be adressed in a future update. Think of it as a "save point". It wouldn't say there is general consensus, even though there is a clear and significant majority which is IMO clear and significant enough to carry forward and upload it with a "debated" tag.
If this is upload as it is now, it'll be a great step in a more permanent solution. In a month we'll be talking about improving THIS guideline, with feedback for the good and the bad it gives, helping us asserting how to improved the stuff we're disagreeing on right now. I don't know about you all, but I'd rather talk about improving these guidelines with retrospective and insight than try to anticipate every possible issue. [[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]) 03:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your reasoned response Jimp. It would have been nice if you would have matched that view with a “1” or “2” vote and better worked with the dozen+ editors who had a hand in crafting this. But you know as well as I do that when your opposition to the policy reaches a certain extent, there really is no tweaking the policy to address concerns; you pretty much just flat oppose it and that’s it. This is the way you came across. Not having editors choose units “will-nilly” isn’t an unreasonable thing to desire; not in the least. The trouble is that a much larger number of editor here simply think such concerns are unwarranted and amount to making a mountain out of a mole hill when one looks at what the guideline really says, which boils down to: “Wherever a discipline consistently uses its own units—either conventional or non-SI metric—editors should observe that practice so readers can readily converse with those knowledgeable in the discipline.” The policy is supposed to fix “will-nilly” choices by laying down an easy-to-prove test that settles the point.
In every instance I can envision Jimp, all we will be doing is bringing Wikipedia in line 1) with real-world usage and literature in a field, 2) with the way professional encyclopedias like World Book and Encyclopedia Britannica already do it. That means “cc” for Honda and Suzuki motorcycles, “barrels” for crude oil production, and “megabyte” for computers. In many cases, Wikipedia is already doing the right thing in “going with the flow.” In others, like “megabyte” we’ve currently got an untenable situation where some articles go with the flow of real-world usage while still other articles put Wikipedia in the position of being the only place around by using terms like “mebibyte” in general-interest computer articles. Further, battles have raged continually for years from the moment that unwise practice first began. This marks the beginning of the end for that practice and is the beginning of consistently keeping Wikipedia in line with the practices observed by professional, paid editors at the real, print encyclopedias. As long as the editors here take a good-faith approach to following the guideline, disputes will be settled faster and much more rationally from hereon.
As for a “lack of consensus”, that’s not the case. Francis Schonken, an uninvolved administrator editor who works on Wikipedia policy issues long ago (even before this latest vote) stated as follows: “Discussion [now primarily] seems to be style improvements of the wording (and "too long"/"too short" kind of comments) - nothing substantive to the core of the matter of this being a useful idea to be added to mosnum. Yes the procedure was somewhat unusual. Nothing inappropriate or whatever though, congratulations!”Greg L (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By no means do I intend to discount the judgement of Francis but he is just one human like you and me. Humans can overlook things ... even if they do happen to be admins ... or work on policy issues instead, as the case may be. My take on the matter at the time Francis made the statement was that there were not only style improvements under discussion but a number of concerns, substantive concerns, which cut to the core of this proposal. This situation I don't view as having changed. I don't like to go about calling people wrong but I don't see any real consensus as having formed.
Certainly, on counting the numbers, I'll concede that the majority seem to be in favour of the proposal but it's by no means a vast majority. The opposition (for lack of any better term's popping into my head) may be in the minority but we are a significant minority, many of whom have shown a great interest in and/or a deep knowledge of units of measure and their use on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia doesn't operate on counting votes alone. Reasoned discussion is essential. A number strong arguments in favour of the proposal have been brought forth. I can see where you're coming from, Greg, and believe you to have the best intentions. However, a number of strong arguments against it have also been presented and not all of these concerns have been addressed. Currently the main topic of discussion on this talk page is this proposal. Some of the discussion is about how to improve the proposal and some is about the appropriateness of the means by which it got onto the page but a significant proportion deals with whether or not the proposal should be policy. Consensus is still far off.
Similarly, let's not attatch too much significance to those numbers up there. If I write like a "1", then take me as a "1". If I write like a "2", then take me as a "2". I dunno, maybe I'm a "½" or even a "1⅔". My "0" was to show that I've got concerns with the very basis on which the proposal is built. Some of my concerns appear to be along the lines that this proposal may cause or worsen the very problems it's intended to prevent. That is, we've got a lot in common with respect to our ends, we differ in perspective as to the best means to those ends. Nor do I intend to let my opposition prevent me from suggesting improvements—I detest nattou, but if we're having nattou pizza for dinner let it be the best nattou pizza we can cook. My critcism of the policy was as much aimed at its improvement as at its removal. I'm willing to help tweak it inspite of my opposition. There are a number to tweaks I'd like to make. However, no amount of tweaking will address all my concerns without radically changing the policy. Therefore I rank myself as a "0". JIMptalk·cont08:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Jimp: well put.
To Greg: I do not take offence at being omitted from the table. That's an easy to mistake to make, which I accept was made in good faith. I do take offence at being accused of bad faith. I was not silent. I made my concerns known before voting, and reserve the right to vote after due consideration and at a time of my own choosing.
From above "we are a significant minority, many of whom have shown a great interest in and/or a deep knowledge of units of measure and their use on Wikipedia."" - Who exactly? Above I asked for substantive objections to be produced and in reply got uncivil comments. I have also been the victim of numerous Tor edits that want to use IEC prefixes and insist on inserting my personal information into numerous pages, most of those edits have since been removed by Oversight. These are not the actions of people who show a great interest in Wikipedia. "However, Wikipedia doesn't operate on counting votes alone." - Quite true it doesn't. "Reasoned discussion is essential." - Exactly. "A number strong arguments in favour of the proposal have been brought forth." - And not refuted. "However, a number of strong arguments against it have also been presented and not all of these concerns have been addressed. - Where exactly? If you think anything has not been addressed then provide diffs. Any arguments previously mentioned in opposition to the guideline text have already been refuted. As I have written above, please provide substantive objections, i.e. arguments that have not already been refuted. Fnagaton17:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be quite enlightening to make a summary of all the arguements and counter-arguments for and against the proposal. Then we could more clearly see how true it is that the concerns I claim have not been addressed have, in fact, been refuted. You ask for "substantive objections", Fnagaton. I claim that they have already been presented. If I felt that they had been refuted, I wouldn't have gone about calling the arguments "strong". JIMptalk·cont00:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they have already been presented and are "strong" (i.e. not refuted) then it shouldn't be too hard for you to supply the diffs, would it? :) I'd like to see what you think are the substantive unrefuted arguments. Fnagaton00:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is this “significant minority” business? Only on Wikipedia does one ever find such a ridiculous amount of mollycoddling to a vocal minority. One can change the U.S. Constitution, convict the U.S. President in a Senate impeachment trial, and find a party culpable to the tune of millions of dollars in a civil trial with vote balances like this. What’s at stake here is a hell of a lot less important than those examples: whether or not Wikipedia should better conform itself to the practices of professional, print encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica, and use the units overwhelmingly used in the real world on relevant articles. Encyclopedia Britannica uses “megabyte” exclusively in computer articles. Why? Because the rest of the world does too. Encyclopedia Britannica uses “barrels” exclusively in articles about crude oil. The rest of the world does too.
The minority “oppose” element that objects to Follow current literature use arguments like “it opens the door to…”, and “influx of perplexing non-standard…”, and “willy-nilly…”. These arguments are specious and do not withstand the sanitizing scrutiny of the majority of the editors here. There is clearly a general consensus on this issue, and the “support” editors have leaned over backwards to give a full and fair hearing and to solicit the input from those who had anything remotely approaching a constructive suggestion or addressable concern. Greg L (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeh, Lightmouse, Tony, Thunderbird2 and I marked the above poll with an "x". I'm sure we can add Gene Nygaard to the list of opponents and Gerry Ashton too I guess. Elsewhere a decision is carried through with a majority vote but WP is no democracy. Those are not my arguments, they are merely a few of the words I wrote when putting my arguments forth. If people would like to discuss my writing style, that's fine by me. I fail to understand how you percieve there to be any consensus on this. JIMptalk·cont18:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is "(subject to "Binary prefixes", below)." (in the discipline-specific bullet) leftover text from something else? It looks kinda weird, especially since there is no "Binary prefixed" below.[[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]]) 04:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I would give SI or unit accepted with SI preference when writing an overview of many topics that do not use the same units. An example of that would be an article North American oil importations. Since US uses barrels, Mexico uses [insert Mexican unit here] and Canada uses m3, when uniting the three in one, give preference to SI units, even if the US article is written in barrels and the Mexican article is written in [insert Mexican units here]. [[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]]) 19:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe then, we should find a better example to use that oil production. I thought I was safe to use this example because barrels of oil are universally used by the world press, the CIA fact book, and in all world-wide commodities transactions. If one reads up on oil production in any professional print encyclopedia, the convention is to simply follow standard practices in the oil industry: barrels. Thus, I felt it was a good choice for an example to use here: use barrels of oil (like “11 million bbl/day” as the CIA factbook says) like all the rest of the world unless you are writing of an article specifically about Canadian oil production. Even then, when a Canadian producer is selling their oil on the world market, they quote in cost per barrel. Why should someone hear about how oil costs $120 per barrel on the TV or radio news, or read of it in the newspaper or Newsweek, or in Encyclopedia Britannica, and then go to Wikipedia and see cubic meters first? That makes no sense whatsoever to me. Thus, it seemed like a perfect example to use in order to get this point across Greg L (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Add "unless there is a predominant international usage for the non-SI units." to what I just said. What I say may not apply to oil imports, but you get the idea.[[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]]) 19:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the choice of oilbbl was unfortunate, it too is a ratsnest. The problem arises not with small quantities but rather with the large multipliers. Multiplied units like MMbbl or Mbbl are very much subject to locally variant interpretation. When discussing the size of global reserves or even global trade, we need to discuss numbers in the (short scale) trillions of barrels. Add to that the fact that barrels have more than one size and it just gets too confusing for the average young reader who (through most of the world) only uses SI and may never have seen a barrel. Nearly all the international trade in oil is conducted via oil pipeline or supertanker by specialists who would not be in the least confused by the choice of bbl, tonne, or m3 units, while the commodities and futures markets are dealing in pure abstractions of value that would happily use any unit that doesn't take up too many characters in abbreviated form on their trading screens but would only use one unit and one multipler in any dealings done. They will of course treat Brent Crude, West Texas Intermediate, and a few other benchmark types as seperate commodities that may differ in price by as much as a few percentage points from one to another or as much as twenty or thirty percent over a year. Why not leave this choice up to the editors at Petroleum to work out? LeadSongDog (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate some evidence for the existence of this fantasy young reader who reads English and is interested in oil and has "never seen barrels". We are not here to write for Neverneverland, but for the same audience who takes other English-speaking publications. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson20:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding. And even if such a fantasy reader does exist, how would one decided how to communicate to someone who has never seen “barrels of oil” before? Why… look to current literature on that subject. Everyone else: newspapers, magazines like Newsweek, the CIA fact book, oil company annual reports, commodities trading, etc., etc., all use barrels and don’t bother to convert to cubic meters because the standard practice observed by the vast majority of the oil industry uses nothing other than barrels. It would be a welcome relief if volunteer Wikipedia editors stopped behaving as if they are somehow wiser than the paid, professional editors all over the world and simply followed current literature. Wikipedia is not our private soap box to promote change in how people measure things and communicate. Greg L (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The mindset expressed by Greg_L is that a person reading an article about oil couldn't possibly be interested in any related product, such as propane, liquified natural gas, biodiesel, that might be measured in some other unit. I don't remember what the volume of a barel of oil is, and I have no plans to ever learn it. Any article that lacks a conversion to cubic meters is deficient. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The green-div is silent on the issue of conversions for barrels. It speaks only to the issue of the primary unit to give. Conversions are addressed in a separate section, which makes it clear that 1) there are a wide varieties of ways to do conversions and it depends on the nuances of the subject matter, and 2) when in doubt, look towards current literature. I see no reason to specifically say that parenthetical conversion of oil to cubic meters should be discouraged; it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if English-language current literature on that subject in Europe provides conversions to cube meters. Editors here have to stop reading more into the wording than is there. There is no “conspiracy” here except to get Wikipedia in line with how the rest of the world works in any given discipline. The whole IEC prefix issue (one, seriously extreme example of a piss-poor practice) morphed into—and is covered by—this most basic of principles covered in the green-div. Greg L (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Running this google news query just now found various recent English-language stories reporting oil spills in gallons, litres, tons and barrels. Should we convert to all of them?LeadSongDog (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who suggested doing so? But your link presently begins with a WSJ article which says 11 million gallons; if that is the only source for the spill, we should use it (even converting to a quarter-million barrels, which was probably what their reporter heard, would mistate the precision). The next says 100 liters (less than a barrel). Again, we should not convert; we should state what our source tells us. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or the current wording: “Wherever a discipline consistently uses its own units”. Regardless of how the basic principle is conveyed, if we can agree on that principle, and can then agree that the example points properly demonstrate the principle, then we’ve got it. Greg L (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess adding what I wrote would be kind redundant.[[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]]) 19:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
A problem for many users is that the current text could be interpreted as *forbidding* SI units. If the intent of the text is about putting non-SI units in primary position and still permitting SI units in secondary position, then perhaps the wording should be made clearer. Lightmouse (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is huge that nuances are lost as soon as you get 20 words further on. There are examples of what 'not to do' that quote SI units and these could be taken to mean that the intent is to forbid SI. Lightmouse (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought Preference for modern units (SI) and all the examples of engine displacements would address any possible ambiguity in this regard. If your feel that a fair, honest, straightforward interpretation (no hidden strings assumed) can be construed as somehow forbidding parenthetical conversions to the SI, then let’s fix it. Note that the current wording says “Parenthetical conversions should be given where appropriate and should generally also follow the practices in current literature on that subject unless there is good reason to do otherwise.” There are so many examples—besides oil—that could be added but things would get cluttered awfully fast. I would think the general principal of Follow current literature should suffice. Greg L (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The four bullets in the current guideline are succinct enough to be explicit and usable. Headbomb's example above looked like it could become a succinct bullet and do all that you seem to want. Lightmouse (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase “Saudi Arabia exported 9.0 million barrels of crude” from the fourth draft does not contain a conversion to SI units, thus implying there should be no such conversion. Also, the forth draft says "'a gravity gradient of 3.1 µGal/cm', not 'a gravity gradient of 3.1×10−6 s–2'", which implies that if a unit that is metric but neither SI nor accepted for use with SI is used, it is incorrect to provide a conversion to the appropriate SI unit. I suggest the draft be immediately updated to show any acceptable conversion, and a statement that conversions other than those shown in the examples are incorrect. Otherwise it is difficult to judge just what conversions the draft is, or is not, advocating. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Look at the bullet style in the current guideline that predates this proposal. It is good. The prose style in the proposal takes too long to read and it is clear from this little discussion that even we do not fully understand its intention. It is a problem that gets worse as more nuances, more examples, and more justification is added. Lightmouse (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone here know how current periodicals on these subjects handles these two conversions? Or how Encyclopedia Britannica and other professional encyclopedias handle this issue. Or how a really general-interest, English-language periodical like Newsweek would handle it barrels of oil? I don’t know the answer to how the Canadian-version of Newsweek handles barrels of oil, but I would argue that if even they don’t disambiguate to cubic meters, then doing so here wouldn’t be appropriate. In the case of gravimetry (gals), the unit SI-equivalent (“reciprocal seconds squared”) wouldn’t found anywhere but here and is a really hard unit to get one’s mind around. Just linking to the linked gal/cm link and reading that it is a centimeter per second squared of acceleration for each centimeter of elevation is all that is required to properly educate the reader and prepare them for their studies elsewhere. Why teach them a hard-to-understand unit they wouldn’t encounter in the real world? This issue cuts precisely to the heart of the discussion: to follow current literature and not run off doing our own thing promoting the adoption of the SI when it doesn’t really “clarify” anything for anyone. Greg L (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need to solve that now. Simply state the guideline that is no longer than any of the existing bullets. I do not believe that there is a clear and present danger that needs to be solved today relating to oil and gravimetry articles. You are clearly interested in binary prefixes but I suggest that you give just one example in its own sub-bullet. The whole thing can be wrapped up in one bullet with one sub-bullet of one sentence each. Lightmouse (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Mencken said, "For every problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, obvious, and wrong." Attempting to say what exactly should be done in a bulletpoint is one of these. No bulletpoint is complex enough to fit the universe; but
Use the units customary in a given field.
For the sciences, often, but not always, this will be SI.
It is often advisable to state a measurement in the style and units of the source. This may increase accuracy as well.
Add parenthetical conversion to other units, SI, US customary, or imperial, if this will make the article clearer.
Please don't waste your time defending barrels of oil or gal/cm. Since these are examples, they should represent what to do in a wide variety of similar cases, and readers shouldn't have to be gravity or petroleum experts to understand the examples. Consider the gravity example: a non-SI unit that is accepted for use with SI in some circumstances. Another such unit is the astronomical unit. The absence of a conversion for gals implies that one shouldn't provide a conversion for astronomical units either. If the reasons for not providing a conversions for gals can't be understood by anyone lacking a degree in physics, it's useless as an example. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If one understands accelleration and the concept of a gradient, one can see why μGal/cm is an intuitive unit of measure for the change in gravitational accelleration with position, and can also see why s-2 does not suggest accelleration. If one is unfamiliar with accelleration and gradients, the reason for the appeal of μGal/cm is not apparent, and so one will not prepared to deal with other units, where the same line of reasoning does not apply. For example, calories and joules are both recognized as energy units, so it would be more natural to provide a conversion to joules when calories are mentioned. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't need vector calculus to understand "the rate at which acceleration varies from place to place" or to see the units (unit acceleration)/(unit length) as natural. What requires training is the idea of restating these as L/T2 and L, and cancelling the Ls. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting confused now just when I thought I was beginning to understand you better. A stub article is an article that happens to contain few words. Are you saying that your text in bullet form is a proposal that happens to contain few words? Lightmouse (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well regardless of definition, I thought a stub article is still an article. I will take your word that it is not. I am having trouble understanding why you wrote the bullet text. Are you proposing that bullet text should be put into wp:mosnum? Lightmouse (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So if it is a proposal, it is a lot easier to understand. If it has support of Fnagatron and GregL (and any other proposer), then put it in a green box in a new section. I think it shows progress. Lightmouse (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All: Real life calls. I only want to add that “barrels of oil” seems to be a perfect example to use (among others) because it can be understood by anyone and perfectly illustrates the principle of Follow current literature since it illustrates a not-so-clear-cut principle that there is often no need for a parenthetical conversion, but sometimes there is if the topic is dealing with Canadian oil production. Though seemingly complex on the surface, the gal seemed like a good choice because it is a non-SI unit that is universally used in a particular field. If someone else wants to suggest another example to replace it because it’s too complex, that’s fine by me. But, if the suggested replacement appropriately comes with a parenthetical conversion, I would still advocate keeping the gal because it is an example of a unit that universally needs no parenthetical conversions. Greg L (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone actually done a yahoo/google search for "Canadian oil production"? Check out the returns, especially the ones from Canadian sources here. Not one mention of cubic metres—not one in all those articles. They were all in barrels. Some like this one from Canadian News Wire used barrels and cubic feet to describe Imperial Oil's oil and nature gas production. A quick search of Imperial Oil's website found the use of barrels. And just in case anyone was wondering, the French word for barrels is barils, which can be found on the French version of that page ici. Saying that cubic metres are the common way that the Canadian literature states Canadian oil production just doesn't hold water and should be removed. —MJCdetroit(yak)02:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MJCdetroit. I’ll go revise the fourth draft per your teachings. We’ll see if that’s “one-and-a-half steps forward” or backwards ;-). Greg L (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The objective of technical writing is to communicate with minimal confusion so that readers can learn about a subject and are primed as well as possible to learn even more in their studies elsewhere." Aren't these objectives of all writing? Why presume that a reader wants to learn even more in their studies elsewhere? Are non-students and non-researchers unwelcome? TONY(talk)08:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking to editors here on MOSNUM. General encyclopedias convey information on topics in every field of knowledge and are where all readers come to learn about something. The above words are to get every would-be editor on the proper page with the rest of us: you don’t put Wikipedia in the position of being way out in left field, using weird units of measure while using Wikipedia as a forum for the promotion of the SI if SI units are consistently not used in a given discipline. By improperly doing so, editors don’t help the reader in their studies of the subject. Not one iota. Why? Because the reader is being presented with information that 1) a reader who is already somewhat familiar with the subject hasn’t seen before and will never see again, and 2) a complete novice will never see again after leaving Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was led to believe that the official unit of measurement for oil in Canada was the cubic metre. Canadian publications may indeed use barrels. If it's barrels in the source, by all means we should be giving these first, Canadian oil or otherwise. Let's not discourage conversions to cubic metres, though, not all of us have a feel for how big 9702 cubic inches are. Whether it be by intent or otherwise, the current text does appear to forbid conversion. So let's have the example read more like this.
"'Saudi Arabia exported 9.0 million barrels (1.43×10^6m3) of crude', but not 'Saudi Arabia exported 1.43 million cubic meters (9.0 Mbbl) of crude';"
Our aim is at effective communication, on this we can agree. Adding conversions which will be comprehensible to a wider range of readers can only help ... even if other published material fails to do so.
If the gals are causing strife, why not go for something more straightforward like hectares or millilitres, they're common metric units but not SI nor should they generally be converted to SI?
We should stick with barrels of oil because it hits the nail precisely on the head and demonstrates why Follow current literature should settle the issue in all but the rarest cases. Everyone else: newspapers, magazines like Newsweek, the CIA fact book, oil company annual reports, commodities trading, etc., etc., report in barrels. Note further that the green-div policy is silent on the issue of conversions of barrels of oil—it only speaks to the issue of what primary unit should be used. I see no reason to specifically say that parenthetical conversion of oil to cubic meters should be discouraged; it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if English-language current literature on that subject in Europe provides conversions to cube meters.
As for lightyears: Well, in current literature you see those converted to kilometers and miles all the time. Ergo, in keeping with follow current literature, editors should convert lightyears parenthetically where appropriate. Simple. Why is this being made so complex? Wikipedia is not the private reserve of editors to use as a soap box to promote the adoption of the SI in hopes of changing the way the world makes measurements and how people communicate those measurements.
The gree-div basically says this: Wikipedia prefers international systems of measurement unless the subject is a discipline that consistently does otherwise. Usually, a Wikipedia editor will be sufficiently expert in the subject to know what units are used in an industry; a Suzuki motorcycle enthusiast knows that it’s a “450 cc engine.” If there is doubt for some reason, look to current literature. The motorcycle enthusiast will have zero problem demonstrating to some kookie SI fanatic what is the proper way to denote a Suzuki engine and will have the backing of MOSNUM when the feathers fly. Greg L (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a certain geographic common denominator to Newsweek, CIA, and CNN. Looking outside the US POV for global sources we find the OECD/International Energy Agency uses "thousand metric tons" throughout their reports, such as this one from January 2008.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That’s interesting as far as what an appropriate conversion might be for certain articles. But throughout the world, most oil production and trade use barrels of oil and that’s why Wikipedia’s articles appropriately already use barrels as their primary measure. That’s one of the reasons I chose oil to use as an example: what we are already doing on Wikipedia is appropriate because it follows current literature. Wikipedia’s own articles on Japanese motorcycle engines also correctly follow current literature for the primary unit of measure (cc) and are also in conformance with current literature as far as not bothering with a blathering parenthetical conversion to milliliters or something similar. That’s why I chose it as an example to use. Nevertheless, that still didn’t stop an editor here from advocating a parenthetical conversion like (250 cm3). At least the proposal advocates linking the first use of “cc” to Cubic centimeter; that’s something that few, if any, of Wikipedia’s motorcycle-related articles currently bother to do. Greg L (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Converting" cc to cm³ is just silly—it's the same unit. Greg, you write "I see no reason to specifically say that parenthetical conversion of oil to cubic meters should be discouraged;" no, nor do I but you continue "it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if English-language current literature on that subject in Europe provides conversions to cube meters." and what if it doesn't? The current version reads "Parenthetical conversions should be given where appropriate and should generally also follow the practices in current literature on that subject unless there is good reason to do otherwise." Comprehensibility is always a good reason. Our audience is the general reader, we'd be doing him a disservice if we were to expect him to swallow barrels of oil just because the "literature" fails to give a conversion to something he can more easily relate to. We're not talking about some phantasy reader interested in oil production but who's never heard of the barrel. We're talking about an everyday person who's more at home with the metric system than with the US customary system. Conversions should generally be given inspite of the literature. "Why is this being made so complex?" ... one may well ask. Greg, you write "Wikipedia is not the private reserve of editors to use as a soap box to promote the adoption of the SI in hopes of changing the way the world makes measurements and how people communicate those measurements." No, it is not, none of us are attempting anything of that sort. JIMptalk·cont16:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don’t see where your position is at odds with what Fourth draft actually says. Yet your wording suggests that you think Fourth draftdoesn’t support your desires. Fourth draft fully endorses the practices you see here on Crude_oil_production#Concerns_over_stated_reserves, which uses the unit used in current literature (barrels), and also provides a conversion to cubic meters. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia’s current practices on Japanese motorcycle engines and oil production are in error? Given that current literature on Canadian oil production is often expressed in cubic meters, and given that English-language, European publications on oil production likely do the same, Wikipedia’s current practices with regard to articles on oil are currently in perfect conformance with Fourth draft. If you think Fourth draft somehow says that permissible conversions are highly limited, go read it again; it says precisely the opposite. Greg L (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LeadSongDog: Your edit suggestion (via strike-text) to delete the entire “Level of difficulty (Do not write over the heads of the readership)” section probably isn’t an edit that could reasonably be considered as ‘one-and-a-half steps forward and only a half-step backwards.’ In your edit summary, you wrote “Strike whole Level of difficulty para - doesn't belong here.” I would argue that it is very much part of the central issue; and on two counts no less: 1) The entire section is about “Follow current literature” and the Level of difficulty sub-section clearly is about precisely that very issue. And 2) the paragraph also pertains squarely to the choice of units.
You also added a hidden editors note alongside the struck text that said “<!-- This is a generality for all writing that shouldn't be buried in a dates and numbers guideline. -->”. However, as experienced editors, we’ve all seen numerous instances where novice editors, perhaps a little too anxious to apply the power of scientific notation, for instance, have employed the practice inappropriately. Your describing this advise as a “generality” is accurate; it is common sense. But just because it’s common sense, Wikipedia has the extra challenge that absolutely anyone can be an editor on Wikipedia; the fundamentals need to be spelled out so these editors get the “aha” of the basics and so disputes can be settled as easily as possible. Greg L (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I figured someone was bound to react, but I had to find out who it would be. ;/) I see this as an application of the KISS principle, and WP:KISS. "Avoid writing over the reader's head" belongs up front in WP:MOS, not buried in MOSNUM. If it is there, it will be redundant here. If that intent were hypothetically to be seriously opposed in MOS, it would be unsustainable here. Either way, I considered that MOSNUM is the wrong place for it. Want to go sell its insertion there? LeadSongDog (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KISS is a broad principle that could affect many aspects of editing, LeadSongDog. Unfortunately, neither KISS principle nor WP:KISS are part of MOSNUM, let alone MOS. Further, KISS doesn’t have “Look to current literature” as part of its philosophy.
This particular paragraph (Level of difficulty—Do not write over the heads of the readership) that you’ve said is a “generality for all writing”, is a specific guideline to help editors better understand the nuances of choosing units of measure. We’ve been discussing units of measure here for a long time and it is difficult even for us to agree on what it says ( {1}{2} ). It can be much more difficult for a new editor to divine what Wikipedia guidelines are regarding the units of measure that should be used in articles. When you throw in a new editor’s bias or personal desire (“scientific notation is way-cool”), editors can—and frequently do—do the wrong thing. The last paragraph of Follow current literature provides extra guidance to help reduce occurrences of this.
As far as your statement that this last paragraph should be on MOS, and not “buried in MOSNUM”, I would counter that it clearly should be in both. The “numbers” section has a Main tag directing readers here to MOSNUM. The principle should be mentioned on MOS for those readers who are disinclined to click on the Main tag to come here as well as here to ensure editors are properly provided this guidance. Given that this particular paragraph’s wording is common sense, good advise, is relatively uncontroversial, and has wide support, it makes no sense to delete it now. When things have settled down, it can always be removed later if it becomes clear that it serves no purpose whatsoever. I rather doubt, however, that this will prove to be the case. Greg L (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my statement above, about Canadian oil production, I did not mean to imply that barrels should not have a conversion to cubic meters next to it. Sorry if that seemed unclear. —MJCdetroit(yak)20:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence "Wikipedia's mission is to..." makes a valid point in the original version, but that "preference for international units" in the fourth-draft version is more encyclopædic in tone than "preference for modern units." Other than that, both versions seem fine to me.
As for whether there is a "consensus"– clearly, there is none. Instead of the current "This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion" template, however, is there one that is less obtrusive (e.g., without a big red question mark), that maybe says something like "this guideline is currently under active development. Please visit the talk page to view the discussion"? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lightmouse, is this version up to date? I'd like to make sure Pmanderson's proposal and other's bits have been added to the work in progress text before really committing my support. See it as a whole, so to speak. Fnagaton12:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{editprotected}}
Please add {{disputedtag|section=yes}} after the section heading Units of Measurement on the project page; the above interminable discussion should justify it. If I were the responding admin, I would consider whether there is evidence that any of this page has ever had enough consensus to be a guideline. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would write something like "When SI (or units accepted along SI units) and non-SI units such as U.S. Customs are used in about equal frequency in the literature, give SI units preference for main text and list non-SI units in parenthesis". [[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]]) 19:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I don’t even see why you would advocate such a statement Headbomb. The current wording seems to promote use of the SI even stronger than your wording. It broadly prefers SI except for those weird cases (motorcycles in cc) where disciplines consistently use other units. Greg L (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been busy for a few tending to a problem. I don’t understand about “protecting a discussion page”. What is that about? Will someone explain what is currently going on? Greg L (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make this suggestion: Let’s not treat the fourth draft as so sacrosanct; that’s what it’s there for: a sandbox. If someone has what they think is a good idea, toss it up and change the forth draft gree-div. And don’t be defensive if someone replaces it with something else. If someone is considering trying an edit they really know would be unhelpful and they know full well that the edit would be strongly opposed, don’t bother. Give & take. If someone has what they think is a truly bright idea that will gain consensus, change the gree-div fourth draft ASAP. If everyone embraces the philosophy that they will only make edits intended to be one-and-a-half steps forward and only a half step backward (greater consensus with each move), this may go smoother. That’s my 2¢. Greg L (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I now understand what that above tag is for. If it is a request for permission to edit the version on MOSNUM, that seems like an utterly inane idea to me. That’s what the fourth draft green-div is for: editing. So far, only Pmanderson has used it! I suggest this section be deleted. Greg L (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're already discussing changes to this section anyways, is there any chance that the phrasing of “the auto weighs 1450 kg (3200 lb)”, not the reverse. could be changed to make it more technically accurate? Since kg is not a measure of 'weight', it doesn't seem to be the best example. I know it sounds like nitpicking, and I'm not even suggesting that things shouldn't be phrased that way in general articles. I just don't think that even a minor error such as that should be in the document that sets the example for how to phrase things. :) (Surely you could change it to saying that an auto measures xm long(y ft), right?) Anyways, just a request. Dismiss entirely at your discretion. 139.57.100.104 (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely a reasonable request and it shouldn’t be a deal breaker either way. You might be interested to know that the U.S. Dept of Commerce and the European equivalents allow that the term “weight” (as in “net weight”) to legally mean “mass” in trade and commerce. This is to legally endorse the common practice of referring to mass as weight. In so doing, one doesn't have to have awkward syntax like “I massed myself at 71 kilograms today.” I subscribe to Aviation Week & Space Technology (a magazine that has advertisements for AWACs planes and missile defense systems) and noticed that even NASA recently avoided the use of the term “mass”. They were talking about a spacecraft for going back to the moon and wrote of how it would have a “weight on Earth of such ‘n such kilograms” even though a “mass of such “n such kilograms” (with no specificity for what heavenly body it was sitting on) would have sufficed. This ‘mass v.s. weight’ issue is one of two misconceptions on the whole, broad subject. The other misconception is that the kilogram is a unit of mass whereas the pound is a unit of weight. In fact, both are units of mass. Greg L (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The pound is a unit of mass? Since when? I thought that the slug was the unit of mass.[[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]]) 12:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Both are, since Anglo-American customary units are determined by usage; despite the efforts of English-speaking governments, there is no equivalent of the SI conventions.
This proposed correction, however, is a perfect example of why this guideline encourages bad writing: anybody who distinguishes between mass and weight in an article on makes of automobile is engaged in off-topic irrelevancy. In the very long run, when there are automobiles on the moon, this may change; but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson13:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Weight Watchers should change their name to Mass Watchers. I checked the UK version of Weight Watchers[3] to see if they used kilograms. No, they use stone and pound. As in "Collette weighs 9 st 8 lb" (9 stone 8 pound, 134 pounds). After those Brits put on a stone or two from drinking too many pints, they have to join Weight Watchers. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the jolly old UK many people don't have a good comparison if people state their weight in kilograms, stones and pounds, or fractions of stones seem to be mostly widely used here in conversation.Fnagaton09:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2 by 4 inches (50 mm × 100 mm)
The guideline recommends "1.2 in × 1.8 in" over "1.2 × 1.8 in", fair engough, but what if the "×" is spelt out as "by" and/or the "in" (or whatever unit) is spelt out as "inch(es)"? "1.2 by 1.8 inches" would seem quite normal to me, "1.2 inches by 1.8 inches" being perhaps a little over the top but not wrong. How about "1.2 × 1.8 inches" verses "1.2 inches × 1.8 inches"? How about "1.2 by 1.8 in" verses "1.2 in by 1.8 in"? I sort of feel it's a question of "×" vs "by" more than "in" vs "inch(es)". Thoughts anyone ... JIMptalk·cont07:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expunge the passage as MOScruft. Omitting the in may be unclear, but including it may be heavy; both depend strongly on context. Either mention the problems or leave the entire matter to editorial judgment. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson13:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise against writing like that when you write it in words. No one writes "a 2 by 24 millimeter section", so I don't see why one should write "a 2 by 4 inches wood plank". One speaks of 2 by 4's, or 2x4's but that's because grammar-wise it's the name of the thing. When giving specifications, it should be "1.2 in x 1.8 in" or "1.2 inches by 1.8 inches", the x being used when units are in unit form and the by when units are fully spelled out. IMO.[[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]]) 14:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
What on earth is wrong with "1.2 × 1.8 in" and "50 × 100 mm"? Shorter, easier to pick up, and absolutely unambiguous. TONY(talk)14:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a missing unit in the first number, so it could be anything. 1.2 ft x 1.8 in; 1.2 in x 1.8 in, 1.2 yards x 1.2 inches etc. [[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]) 19:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it could mean anything; but in the absence of any evidence or indication to the contrary, it doesn't. See ellipsis; thus, for example, the phrase in my last sentence is equivalent to in the absence of any evidence to the contrary or indication to the contrary,. Again, never using ellipsis is bad, because clumsy, writing. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson20:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm returning to my original gut feeling. Anderson is right to bring up ellipsis. I'd say that "1.2 by 1.8 inches" could mean nothing but "1.2 inches by 1.8 inches" and would be the usual way of expressing it in English. Ellipsis is aptly applied when we're dealing with words, the longer form clumsy. It doesn't occur in mathematics though. As Thunderbird points out, "50 × 100 mm has only one possible meaning: five metres", mathematically speaking. Since we're using a mathematical symbol (the times sign) it might be looked at as a mathematical expression. If we're using symbols/abbreviations for the units, we probably won't have to be concerned so much with wordiness. I agree Headbomb that "×" should be used when using symbols/abbreviations and that "by" should be used when spelling the units out. JIMptalk·cont01:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why nanometers and not angstroms?
All of the documentation for uvis instruments on Hubble use Angstroms everywhere (IR instruments use microns) so why are the articles about them written using nm? This seems counterintuitive. Dfmclean (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The use of SI units may confuse a small number of specialists for approximately one nanosecond, while making the article accessible to a much wider readership. In what sense is it counterintuitive to use units that we can all understand? Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the "body of literature" clause? I deal with Hubble related documents every day and I don't ever remember seeing one written using nanometers. Sure, I can do the conversion in my head, but the MoS does not say "use the units that most people will understand" it says "use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic." Dfmclean (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NASA for some reason or another, doesn't comply with SI guidelines. The angstrom is an old unit that is tolerated, but frowned upon by most of the scientific community, except perhaps in spectroscopy. Angstroms are being replaced with nanometers everywhere else. Like Thunderbird mentioned, experts aren't confused for more than a second by nanometers (divide angstroms by 10) so for fake of readability, nanometers trump angstroms. But I can how that would be inconsistent with guidelines. I modify my vote in consequence and will try to think of a solution.[[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]) 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we, as editors working this issue, are bouncing around from article to article, trying to pull things together in our own minds and make coherent sense of it all. Some editors are looking for project-wide consistency with units of measure but we just can’t manage that; nor should we. Some editors love the SI so much, they believe that if the water behind dams is measured in cubic meters, so too should crude oil production and all other measures of volume. It just doesn’t work like that and we can’t have project-wide consistency.
I haven’t checked a wide variety of current literature on spectroscopy and don’t want to get bogged down in such details. But if (that’s a big if) current literature on spectroscopy in the U.V. wavelengths (for instance) consistently uses Angstroms, then so too should Wikipedia (on an article directed specifically on that subject). Think through the ramifications of some student who first researches the subject here on Wikipedia before wading into a text book or scientific paper on the subject and consistently finds entirely different units being used in the field. That’s why Encyclopoedia Britannica would use Angstroms (if that discipline consistenly uses Angstroms).
Now… if the field of U.V. spectroscopy isn’t consistently using Angstroms and there is a mix of both nm and Angstroms, then Wikipedia should default to SI first, and disambiguate to Angstrom as required. Greg L (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Factoid: Comparing this nanometer+ultraviolet+spectroscopy to this angstrom+ultraviolet+spectroscopy Scholar query for the 2006-2008 window, we get 1870 vs 820 hits. Hardly an overwhelming preference in the recent academic literature. Running the same queries for 1980-1990 window got 273:1100 the other way, so practice has evidently shifted. The HST design, like most deployed space systems, is several years behind current design practice. LeadSongDog (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Dfmclean: If you look at the edit history you will see that 'Follow current literature' was introduced very recently into MOSNUM, without consensus, thus sparking off a sequence of reverts that culminated in the page being locked for 5 days. That is the reason for the 'disputed' banner currently hanging over it. Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above count forgot to include the 557 results for nanometre+ultraviolet+spectroscopy, which may be assumed not to overlap with one containing nanometer. Better might be to search as:
All: From what I can see, now that I’ve dug into the above searches and performed some of my own, I would advance that the discipline of UV spectroscopy does notconsistenly use non-SI units of measure (ångström). So I would argue that a fair and proper enterpretation of Follow current literature in its totality would hold that fully-compliant SI units (nanometer) would take preference. Note however, that this is a grey area. The BIPM approved the ångström for use with the SI. So if (again, that’s a big “if”) an editor of a particular article finds him or herself citing and quoting sources that are typically using ångströms, then it is perfectly permissible—according to the BIPM—to use ångströms in the article as the primary unit of measure (along with the obligatory link to ångströmand the use of a parenthetical disambiguation to nanometers).
The second thing I would advance is that all the above nuances are currently covered in Follow current literature and this was a good test for whether or not Follow current literature properly addresses issues such as these. Would you guys agree? Greg L (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems to vindicate Jimp's position, namely that 'Follow current literature' will result in an upsurge of volume measured in CID, pressure in kg/cm^2, endless bickering over whose Google search is the more appropriate and - eventually - Balkanisation of units on Wikipedia. I think it should be removed, the sooner the better. Thunderbird2 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like ten archives (B1–B10) arguing over a “better unit of measure” is a good thing?!? Not at all. Years of bickering would have been avoided if Wikipedia simply followed the practices observed by the rest of the real world. I would also suggest that this will all be easier when the policy is formally in place on MOSNUM. These disputes of what units to use in what articles will typically be fought by the editors of each respective article. There are often one or more shepherding authors who specialize in that topic, understand it quite well, and are thoroughly familiar with standard practices in that discipline. If some newbie editor who is an wildly pro-SI nut comes along and does something stupid, then this policy will assist in quickly settling the issue and getting on with life. The policy is simple for these specialist editors: the units should be SI unless that discipline consistently does otherwise. Right now, each of us editors has to be a bit like a R&D mechanical engineer: we have to rapidly get up to speed with every “what if” that comes a long here. These are all good tests for whether Follow current literature works well under a wide variety of circumstances, but it’s not easy for us. Greg L (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Sorry T-bird. I didn’t mean to leave your name off the vote table. That wasn’t intended as a slight. Will fix. Greg L (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(no offence taken) Greg, I don't have any firm answers here. Perhaps you're right and perhaps not (at least we can agree that it's not easy), but please accept that valid arguments have been expressed against the wording. Before I was unsure whether there was consensus for it, and now I am sure there is not. That is why it should be removed from MOSNUM; doing so would permit discussions to continue on the Talk page, in peace. Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know as well as I what would be accomplished if we tried to do it that way: zero. Reciprocal infinity. Every experienced editor I know of on Wikipedia agrees that the Wikipedia system is broken when it comes to affecting change for the better. And this is peace compared to what Tony was threatening to do. I think it should be clear as glass that the administrators don’t want any of that going on and are happy with the way things have been progressing lately. Let me ask this: Do you really think “B11” is going to be the last archive on this issue if some edtiors here don’t change their ways and allow Wikipedia to fully go with the flow? This issue has been going on for two years. Do you really think this is going to go away? Greg L (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon seeing how easy it was to settle the dispute we just had, I'm fully convinced that this is a good, solid policy. It may not fix everything now, and they may still be concerns, but we'd be hurting ourselves to not release this very soon. As of now, the poll stands as 5 fully for, and 3 fully against, and I find that the reason for NOT going forward with this are simply incredibly weak when measured against the benefits of going forward. If we can't settle this during the week, I suggest we require arbitration.[[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]) 23:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Headbomb, those that have voted fully against have given incredibly weak reasons for doing so when compared to the benefits of moving forward. Moving forward to improve the guideline cannot and must not be obstructed by a minority intent on voting fully against with only weak reasons. Fnagaton23:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you both. Headbomb: your logical assessment of the status quo is impressive and your concise summation of what it all means and what we should do about it has me truly stunned (you mean, we can just be logical??). Above, in Day 5: for how long will this important page be frozen?, DavidPaulHamilton wrote a variation of what you just said Headbomb: “It has consensus to stay because the counter arguments are not as good as the arguments to keep it.” While that’s rather brutally blunt and thoroughly pisses in someone’s Corn Flakes, that pretty much sums up why vote counts haven’t worked in the past: the “oppose” votes simply aren’t backed by valid reasons that can withstand scrutiny other than “ ‘cause I like ta”. That’s why this issue has dragged on for so many years. It’s time to put this one to rest once and for all and move on to better things.
The trouble with arbitration is that it is a cumbersome process. I understand there can be informal mediation but both parties have to agree to it (and even that could be blocked with only a couple of votes so the motion fails to gain consensus). Do any of you know the ins and outs of going to arbitration. If we can get this to arbitration, I think that is the way to go though. Can either of you look into this? Greg L (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about it other than it exists. I'm new to wikipedia (been active for about a month), so perhaps it would be best if someone who's been around looked into it. I could still do it, though. [[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]) 19:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Francis also picked up on this when it was written "Are there still substantive comments regarding this guidance? I see no problem to make this part of the guideline now.". Fnagaton00:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fnagaton: In case that quote is “suggestion via proxy”, it’s too soon, I think. Although it seems to me like this requires another week, I’ve now seen that “Wikipedia time” is a bit more compressed than real time. So I think that several more days are in order to ensure a reasonable opportunity is afforded for every reasonable concern. May I suggest you work with Headbomb? Maybe you two can arrive decide on the wisest course. Greg L (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches are not a good way to determine what is going on in the literature, especally when used by people not familiar with the subject. The searches in this thread are a perfect example: scientific articles usually use symbols for units rather than spelling them out. Using the appropriate symbol for nanometre (nm) gives an order of magnitude more hits than any of the searches in this thread. If the meal is the current literature, then these searches have been about the crumbs that fell on the floor. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are arguing with yourself Gerry; not with any of us. We just agreed it should be nanometers. Further, the conclusion is that relying upon Follow current literature makes it easy to solve these disputes. And the result supports your view and Follow current literature is your ally on this one. Greg L (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow current literature is fine in some circumstances, for people who are actually familiar with current literature. When an outsider to the field attempts to follow current literature by counting Google hits, the result is apt to be wrong. In the case at hand, my intuition is that those who like to use angstroms probably actually use the symbol "Ä", or perhaps settle for "A" if the typography avaliable is limited, but have no confidence that I could do a good Google search for that. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a deliberate choice not to search for the abbreviated units, as the searches are not case-insensitive. NM or A would often return as author initials, seen in the article authors and in the articles' cited-article authors. Cleaner to use only fully spelled unit names.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that we shouldn't be arguing about whether or not this MoS policy will cure AIDS and give everyone a jelly sandwich, it obviously won't. There's always a special case that will never fit the the mold. The MoS is only there to help guide people in the 95% of cases where the mold applies. Will this version of the greenbox help to do that? Yes, it will. Let the other 5% be discussed in each articles. Then we'll see if a later revision of the green box chop down that 5% to a 2%. And so on. [[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]) 05:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
My only complaint is that "follow the current literature" - there is also a question of WHAT literature should be followed. 100% of all of the documentation about the UV and visible light Hubble instruments use angstroms and nothing else. In an article about a UVIS Hubble instrument, the main references would be those very documents. And, yes, those documents are stuffed full of Å characters. Dfmclean (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be part of the stuff that could be improved and clarified. [[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]) 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
If the green-div policy can be improved, great. It seems to me that it currently handles this situation with ease. “[Editors should] use terminology and symbols commonly employed in the current literature for that subject and level of technicality.” It doesn’t need to be complex as long as editors take a good-faith, common-sense approach to the decision.
Just like the green-div’s examples of how an American muscle car engine from the 70s is denoted differently than a European sports car, editors need to consider the exact subject and context when choosing units. If it’s a general-interest article about the entire visible spectrum, like Color, you use nanometers—even for discussing the UV portion. If it’s a general-interest article about the Hubble Space Telescope, and a U.V. experiment is being discussed within the article and comparisons are being made to the wavelengths of other portions of the spectrum, you still should use nanometers. But if the article is about U.V. spectroscopy in space-borne sensors—a highly specialized and technical subject—and if (big if) the vast majority of current scientific literature on that very subject use ångströms, then the green-div policy says editors should use ångströms. Is this the right thing for Wikipedia to do? No doubt; especially given that the BIPM approved the ångström for use with the SI, and since all the sources being quoted within the article would be using ångströms in this hypothetical.
I have to use the word “if” a lot in my writings because those of us here who are discussing this policy can’t be experts on everything. There are often one or more shepherding authors who specialize in certain topics and are thoroughly familiar with standard practices in that discipline. If a dispute arises over a particular article, the green-div policy will assist in quickly settling disputes among those who better know the facts. The policy is simple for these specialist editors: they should use SI units unless the article is about a discipline that consistently uses other units. Greg L (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about adding phone numbers?
I am almost 100% sure that phone numbers should NOT be added to Wikipedia, though the creator of this page seems to disagree. I want to delete them (stop me if I'm wrong) but each time I am stopped. I would appreciate it if someone could point our anything at all relevant to my point that I can share with said user as I can find none myself --Maurice45 (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s not even an English-language TV broadcast in India, the first question that pops to my mind is “does this subject have sufficient notability to even merit inclusion in en.Wikipedia?” I wrote “if” because the article doesn’t even explain what language the broadcast uses. Does that even matter for notability (?), I don’t know; but then, I’m not an expert on Wikipedia policies. Greg L (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: The second thing that pops to mind is MOSNUM isn’t the proper forum for this. I’m not sure what forum is suitable and I hope someone else can direct this editor to the correct one. Greg L (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Fnagaton has flagrantly abused his role as a sysop by closing the AN/I on Omegatron with this POV summary:
This discussion has been archived after Tony's attempt to misrepresent and to make edits after the section has been archived. Tony's attempted bad faith misrepresentation and the subsquent refutation is now archived.
I was not aware that the page had been closed when I made whatever edit he's referring to. But there is a serious accusation of "misrepresentation", and again "bad faith misrepresentatio" that I dispute; in its focus on me alone, it is POV.
Can anyone advise me where I can make an official complaint about this? It seems a denial of natural justice that he thinks he can close a page with such a POV summary to which I have no right of reply, the content of which I think a lot of people would dispute. I think this is sysop-resignation material. [4]TONY(talk)14:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You attempted addition of bad faith misrepresentation to a section three months after it has been archived, the whole page is an archive as shown by the word "Archive" in the page title. You gave no right of reply by editing an archived page in the first place and what you did was a breach of etiquette by editing an archived section with your own personal attack and not telling anyone about it. Hiding an edit in an archived section that nobody is watching is also a breach of etiquette. That is why it has been marked with a "following discussion is archived" box to make sure you realise the section has been archived in the first place and should not have been edited by you. The justice is that your attempted misrepresentation has been archived for everyone to see. If you really want to make a complaint you may of course, but it will only draw attention to how you edited an archived section and your attempted bad faith misrepresention. I did actually consider reporting you for adding bad faith misrepresentation long after a section has been archived because what you did was wrong, but then I decided to mark the section as archived to make it clear to you that you should not be editing old archived sections and to give you a chance because I don't want to see you punished for making one mistake. Fnagaton14:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. If, as you claim, you were not aware the page had been archived when you made your edits then you can demonstrate this by requesting that all of your edits added after the section was archived and your edits to this talk page are completely removed. I would then consider the matter closed and I will not make a formal complaint against you for your attempted misrepresentation added to an archived section. Fnagaton14:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly will report this abuse. Fnagaton, I request that you remove the edits I made to that page in error. I certainly won't be removing my edits on this page pointing out your abuse and your personal attack. TONY(talk)15:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You made a personal attack with your first edit. You were then corrected by another editor and you then proceeded to make an uncivil comment which then demonstrated your are using bad faith misrepresentation. Your personal attacks and bad faith misrepresentation are archived on the page for the complaint to see. Fnagaton16:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this right: you ask that I ask that edits I made in error be removed; then when I do so, you attack me again, but refuse to remove them. I give up. Further attack is the best form of defence, is it? My issue now is your abuse of admin privileges. TONY(talk)16:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said "requesting that all of your edits added after the section was archived and your edits to this talk page are completely removed". You have not made this request because you have not asked an uninvolved administrator to completely remove your edits here and on the ANI page, this involves removing all history entries for your edits. I cannot remove the history of your edits here and on the ANI page. I specifically mention this talk page because your accusations are completely false and you have made untrue claims in your edit comments themselves so it would do no good to only request the ANI changes to be removed since it would leave your untrue accusations on this page. I'll say it again, if you request that all of your edits added after the section was archived and your edits to this talk page are completely removed I would then consider the matter closed and I will not make a formal complaint against you for your attempted misrepresentation added to an archived section. Fnagaton16:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:Tony, did you mean this talk page? I am assuming so, and I do have one minor comment, which is that in SI-speak, kgs does not mean kilogram-second (that would be kg·s or kg s). Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Comment moved to the correct talk page Thunderbird2 (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Thunderbird; I goofed, and have now provided a section link to the talk page of the monthly updates—see above in this subsection. I'll deal with your point tomorrow, if you don't mind; off to bed. TONY(talk)16:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Example of Follow current literature
My local library has the Encyclopedia Britannica Online Edition and patrons can access it from their home computers. The Britannica articles have word links to other topics just like Wikipedia. I looked up motorcycle and found a 900 word articles. Here is a paragraph that covers engine displacement. It looks like the "follow current literature" proposal. Note the conversion of fuel economy.
Motorcycles are produced with both two-stroke- and four-stroke-cycle engines and with up to four cylinders. Most are air-cooled, though a few are water-cooled. Engines are generally limited to displacements of about 1,800 cc. The smallest designs, termed mopeds (from “motor pedal”), have very small engines (50 cc) with fuel economies of as much as 2.4 litres per 100 km (100 miles per gallon). Such units are not permitted on limited-access public roads because of their low speed capability. In order of increasing power capacity and engine displacements, the other five classifications are child bikes, trail bikes, road bikes, touring bikes, and racing bikes. A subcategory of racing bikes is known as superbikes. These are motorcycles that displace more than 900 cc and in which the seat is tilted forward so that the rider is hunched over the frame, creating a more aerodynamic profile.
This quote from the petroleum article shows oil measured in barrels. Also note the large number does not use scientific notation.
The discovery that transformed Saudi Arabia into a leading oil country was the Al-Ghawar field. Discovered in 1948, this field has proved to be the world's largest, containing 82,000,000,000 barrels.
Because gravity changes are far less than 1 metre per second per second, it is convenient to have a smaller unit for relative measurements. The gal (named after Galileo) has been adopted for this purpose; a gal is one-hundredth metre per second per second. The unit most commonly used is the milligal, which equals 10-5 metre per second per second—i.e., about one-millionth of the average value of g.
Here is megabyte used to measure the size of computer memory
The main memory of a modern computer consists of a number of memory chips, each of which might hold many megabytes (millions of bytes), and still further addressing circuitry selects the appropriate chip for each address.
computer memory. (2008). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved May 8, 2008, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online Library Edition: http://www.library.eb.com/eb/article-252736
Thanks Swtpc6800. All the above are examples of good technical writing practices observed by professional editors at Encyclopedia Britannica in order to communicate to a general-interest audience with minimal confusion, to educate them on what they need to know about a given subject, and best prepare them for any further studies on the subject they may pursue. All the above—including not showing off how damn smart we are as editors by using scientific notation inappropriately—are points covered in Follow current literature. When I once said ‘this is the way Encyclopedia Britannica does it’, one of the “oppose” editors responded with“There's no reason for us to stoop to Encyclopædia Britannica standards.” Yes, some of the editors here on Wikipedia have very high self esteem, but it was high time on MOSNUM that we memorialized in writing, some of the basic fundamentals of how encyclopedias communicate. This is after all, a forum for would-be novice editors to try their hands at authoring. Even more troubling is that otherwise experienced editors can weigh in here with a philosophy about the SI and how it’s a wonderful thing and should actively be promoted—even to the extent of making Wikipedia the only place around that observes certain practices. Yes, it’s time to “stoop” to Encyclopedia Britannica’s standards. Greg L (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, they EncyBrit article is a perfect example of why we shouldn't blindly follow their practices: It's simply wrong. Although it is certainly defensible that "MB" or "megabytes" means 220, and certainly true that computer chip capacities come in binary multiples, "millions of bytes" absolutely unambiguously means multiples of 1,000,000. They are therefore not only wrong; they are adding to the confusion on this matter. We can, and should, do better (and it won't take much!). To put it another way: Yes, I perfectly well do think I know better than any writer typist who would produce such copy, and also better than any editor who would approve it. (Aside: I had no idea Britannica had degraded to "World Book" levels.) Jeh (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would be wrong to add to the confusion by mentioning IEC prefixes because they are unfamiliar to our target readership and are virtually unused. Using more precise disambiguation by specifying the number of bytes is preferable because it uses already familiar ways as seen in other popular operating systems and software. And this is what the Encyclopedia Britannica do [5]. Fnagaton07:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on that page, they say 1 megabyte = 220 bytes (written out). Now what of the cases (as on hard drives) where a megabyte = 1,000,000 bytes? See, the problem with always using and disambiguating MB is that you have to keep disambiguating, because some of your disambiguations say one thing and some say another. Whereas if you stick to MB = 1,000,000 bytes and MiB = 220 bytes, you only have to explain the latter term once (that is, each reader only has to look it up once). In my opinion that advantage overrides the MiB's initial, temporary, and extremely short-lived unfamiliarity to the reader. Jeh (talk) 08:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that IEC prefixes don't just have to be explained once, they are unfamiliar to our readers so they need constant wikilinking and explanation as to why they are used instead of the terms and familiar methods used in the sources relevant to an article. Also, using IEC in such is contrary to the real world consensus and as such is contrary to the aims of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:Verifiability. Anyway, this argument has already been refuted by one of my earlier comments so I'll link that instead. Fnagaton08:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they only have to be explained once in that each reader only has to read the explanation once. Wheres megabyte or MB, if IEC prefixes are not used, has to be disambiguated everywhere if confusion is to be avoided. WP:NPOV and WP:OR don't apply here (a choice of unit is neither a POV on the subject matter, nor is it OR on the subject matter of an article that merely happens to use them; you might as well claim that a preference for certain choices of words is "pushing a POV". "Verifiability" is your weakest argument yet; the IEC prefixes most certainly are verifiable as recommended by several recognized standards bodies. And you can't "refute" an opinion that one advantage ("explain just once per reader") outweighs the IEC units' initial unfamiliarity. That's a value judgment. Of course that means that I can't prove it correct either, but the point is that neither side here enjoys a "provably correct" position. Lastly, I will note that you have not attempted to comment on my pointing out that EncyBrit's usage is confusing, wrong, and inconsistent with themselves, stating that megabytes equals "million bytes" in one place and 220 bytes in another. Heck of an example to follow. Jeh (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguation of KB/MB/GB with exact numbers of bytes also has to only be read once to understand what is being used and has the benefit of not using unfamiliar virtually unused prefixes which benefits the reader. As already refuted by the link I posted above, WP:NPOV and WP:OR do apply because it is pushing a point of view to use IEC prefixes against real world consensus. I refuted the argument presented above by providing logical reasons, trying to then claim it is a "value judgement and cannot be refuted" is in itself a weak argument. If there are any substantive arguments that have not already been refuted then I would like to see them. The example of the Encyclopedia Britannica is a good example because it shows for general articles an approximate number of byte is good enough to convey what needs to be shown in the article and then it includes a more exact example as disambiguation for people who want to know more. It is also a good example because it doesn't introduce confusing, unfamiliar and virtually unused IEC prefixes. The cited source does not say "million bytes", it says "millions of bytes" and that means the argument ""millions of bytes" absolutely unambiguously means multiples of 1,000,000." is fallacious because in English when it is said "This building cost millions of pounds" it does not mean the building cost a total of an exact multiple of one million pounds, instead it means any number which is approximately a multiple of a million which can also mean 7.1 million, 7.2 million etc. The EB are therefore not being "inconsistent with themselves". Fnagaton09:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguating MB, etc., with exact numbers of bytes has to be done every time these so-called units are used. I agree that unfamiliarity of IEC prefixes is a problem - but it is a highly temporary problem. Using a standard establised by IEC, NIST, etc., is hardly pushing a non-neutral POV and it is miles (excuse me, km :) ) away from OR; OR would be to invent one's own units or prefixes! You are simply incorrect in your claim that you "refuted" anything I have written; you simply stated your (same old) opinions yet again in a tone that made it clear that you thought they were facts. Re your defense of EB... Oh, so now "megabyte" doesn't mean 1,000,000 OR 1,048,576; it means whatever the writer wants it to mean, maybe even more than the latter figure! Do you not see how you are undermining your own arguments here? I agree that in some usages "millions of dollars" or similar is good enough. Even hard drive capacity does not have to be specified to the last byte (as I have written elsewhere, hard drives are neither neat multiples of GiB or even MiB, nor of GB or MB; the most you can say is that they're moultiples of 512) and in some places the errors you describe are indeed tolerable. The problem though is that by the time we get to TB the error nears 10% (1,000,000,000,000 vs. 1,099,511,627,776) and this is not acceptable for SOME uses. As I said above, I believe that the editors of individual articles should have the right to decide by consensus on those articles which units are to be used and how they are to be disambiguated. Jeh (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation is generally once or twice for each new term used in an article, not "every time". In the hypothetical situation described above the IEC prefixes would also have to be wikilinked or supplied with footnotes to explain why they differ to the articles sources in each article. The IEC prefixes conflict with the reliable sources used for an article and are not familiar and are virtually unused. Therefore it is incorrect to write "You are simply incorrect in your claim that you "refuted" anything I have written" and it is also incorrect to write "you simply stated your (same old) opinions yet again in a tone that made it clear that you thought they were facts." since those points of views have already been refuted by earlier posts by much stronger arguments using evidence about the real world instead of the quoted weaker attempts of just trying to claim the opposite while not using any evidence. If it is thought that the situation with TB is so bad then expressing the exact number of bytes instead of introducing unfamiliar IEC prefixes is a better solution for the average reader to understand. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and since the situation in the majority of cases in the computing industry and with the sources used for writing articles is clearly to not use IEC prefixes then adding IEC prefixes to articles is against WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:Verifiability. The argument above is also refuted by the link I posted above in sections 1, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e. Like I have said many times now, if there are substantive unrefuted arguments against the guideline text then please show the diffs because as of now that has not been done. There isn't anything in the guideline text that prohibits editors getting together to decide by consensus what should be used on a per article basis therefore to state otherwise is incorrect. What the guideline text does do is make sure individual editors are aware of the wider consensus for what to do when writing articles and to give guideance. This of course means that an individual editor is going to need to present a stronger argument that is not based on personal preference. Fnagaton12:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A definition by IEC that is not followed by the industry or by the sources we use is not a standard and should not be pushed by a minority of editors into articles.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It’s just that simple. All counter arguments amount to nothing more than how the IEC prefixes are a good idea that address genuine shortcomings with the conventional prefixes. Well… so sad/too bad; after nine years, the IEC prefixes just didn’t catch on in the industry and press. That’s the reality of the situation. Encyclopedias don’t use terminology that is virtually unused in a discipline and is unknown to the typical reader. Why the hell are you still arguing this point Jeh?!? There have been ten archives dedicated exclusively to arguments over Wikipedia’s use of the IEC prefixes. Do you really think this problem will go away if this practice were allowed to continue? If this issue was dropped here, there would be a “B20” archive two years from now. Whether you like it or not, the conventional binary prefixes are here to stay and Wikipedia needs to recognize that reality and go with the flow with the rest of the world. Greg L (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'm prepared to accept that we will never find concensus to recommend the IEC binary prefixes. I'm not prepared to accept that we make no attempt to disambiguate large, medium, small, (or uncertain) megabytes (by whatever name or description). Just because some sources, even EB, are ambiguous in their usage does not mean that we need to be. I do not think it is necessary to be prescriptive in the method of disambiguation. Different methods will suit different topics, but saying what you mean should trump the principle of least astonishment. LeadSongDog (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LeadSongDog: The majority here are not buying into the arguments of the “oppose” elements that Wikipedia shouldn’t or can’t communicate to its readership using the very same terminology and methods of disambiguation used by every single general-interest computer magazine and all general encyclopedias. In keeping with Follow current literature, if there is a computer article directed to an advanced readership where the majority of the cited sources used the IEC prefixes, then it will be fine to use them. Otherwise, not. If we really have to, we can begin a new poll. Note the following, which is from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (binary prefixes)#Ambiguity and understandability:
Which we could certainly do, agr, if we can all agree that the shortcomings in the conventional options for disambiguating are so severe and so compelling, that our use of protologisms justifies violating the spirit of WP:SOAP, WP:NEO, MOSNUM:Which system to use, and WP:V so that Wikipedia can be justified in using terminology that no other general-interest computer magazine in the observable universe has seen fit to use.
I submit further, we should all have a show of hands as to who else here thinks we Wikipedia contributing editors are somehow more *enlightened* and somehow know better than the editors at all the general-interest computer magazines and all the professional print encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book. I know this may seem combative. But there’s no ducking it; this is precisely what is underlying this debate. So let’s see an honest show of hands.
No, I am not more enlightened than the editors at all the general-interest computer magazines and professional print encyclopedias. 1. Greg L (my talk) 23:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 2. SWTPC6800 (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 3. Fnagaton 11:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 4. Thunderbird2 (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC) As a matter of fact, yes, I am more enlightened than all the editors at all the general-interest computer magazines and professional print encyclopedias. 1. [Your name here] I'm not about to answer a leading question. 1. JIMptalk·cont 00:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Note that not a single editor wanted to admit to that logical reality of their arguments. If you want to continue to argue that you want Wikipedia to do things differently from everyone else, I do wish you had the fortitude to at least stand up and vote “yes” on the the declaration below:
As a matter of fact, yes, I am more enlightened ON THIS TOPIC than the professional, paid editors at all the general-interest computer magazines and print encyclopedias.
[[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]) 01:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not afraid to say it. Professional editors (and regular joes) aren't versed in units systems, and especially not of the rather subtle things like the differences between MB and MiB. I wish the mentality of wikipedia was not "Let's mimic everything every other encyclopedia out there do even if it's wrong (either out of incompetence or ignorance or being afraid of "being different") rather than "Let's lead a movement, and let's do things differently if they should be done differently)." It's one thing to quote a RAM maker that advertises its RAM as 512MB (when really it's 512MiB, or 536.870 912MB) and then disambiguate because the maker said something he didn't mean, but it's another to refuse to use a unit consistently because some people don't know what they are saying. In the same way that people will click on avoirdupois ounce and troy ounce the first time they encounter them, people click on MiB because they are in WTF-mode, and they'll be taken to a page that explains in great detail that the proper unit should be MiB. So there I've said it.[[::User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] ([[::User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]) 01:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
There! There is a position I can respect. I think you are wrong, but at least you ‘fessed up to the logical consequences of your position. Greg L (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was uncalled for. I don't believe you're responding to my post here. Please re-read it. It did not advocate continuing the struggle to use IEC prefixes. Just the opposite. I endeavoured to find a reasonable compromise, something that you seem to react badly to. "Fortitude" doesn't help build concensus, logic does. I do not choose to be goaded into accepting the false dichotomy posed by the "show of hands". We know perfectly well that "all the editors at all the general-interest computer magazines and professional print encyclopedias" wouldn't agree on anything, mostly worked on articles completely unrelated to the subject, and (by and large) were nonetheless very enlightened about their specific topics. If you want to say megabyte, fill your boots. Just don't have MOSNUM tell editors they shouldn't or can't somehow disambiguate the three common meanings of 1,000,000 vs 1,024,000 vs 1,048,576. That's a sure fire way to cause editors to invoke WP:IGNORE. LeadSongDog (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I didn’t ignore you. You wrote “Just because some sources, even [Encyclopedia Britannica], are ambiguous in their usage does not mean that we need to be.” You now alleged that MOSNUM says that “editors … shouldn't or can't somehow disambiguate” so you must not have read what Follow current literaturereally says. It clearly says “…and clarify [the conventional byte prefix] meaning where necessary using familiar techniques…”. Follow current literature also is clear as glass that there are a wide variety of suitable methods to give parenthetical disambiguations and conversions. The only restriction is that they be “familiar” techniques (IEC prefixes are not “familiar”). If you are going to distort the facts, you can climb down out of my butt after I call you on it.
Usually articles in general-interest computer magazines don’t bother with even a one-time disambiguation when one writes “the XYX Computer ships stock with 2 GB of RAM”; it’s clear enough. But if a Wikipedia author perceives the need for disambiguation, then a one-time footnote or two, as seen on Mac Pro, is all that should be necessary without having to resort to “gibibytes”.
As for your statement: “We know perfectly well that "all the editors at all the general-interest computer magazines and professional print encyclopedias" wouldn't agree on anything, mostly worked on articles completely unrelated to the subject…”, all I have to say to that statement is Wow! FYI, when I refer to “professional, paid editors at all the general-interest computer magazines and print encyclopedias”, I’m referring to the “editors”—not the contributing authors. Editors, like those who work at Encyclopedia Britannica or PC World, typically have advanced journalism degrees and know their subject matter extraordinarily well.
Finally, if you really mean what you just wrote above (“[My post] did not advocate continuing the struggle to use IEC prefixes. Just the opposite”), then I just don’t understand why we are arguing about anything at all; Follow current literature is just a bunch of common sense guidelines that affords authors a huge amount of latitude to do the right thing; you shouldn’t have a problem with any of it if you read what is really there. Greg L (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to keep torquing up the temperature. I've got absolutely no interest in your butt. Your words were "every single general-interest computer magazine and all general encyclopedias" (YOUR bold italics). Not some. Not most. All. That is a lot of publications, (see [http://www.compinfo-center.com/itmags.htm this list for instance) with editors in a lot of countries with a lot of differing practices. So no, no matter how professional they are, they won't All agree on much. I never "alleged that MOSNUM says that “editors … shouldn't or can't somehow disambiguate” ", I said "Just don't have MOSNUM tell editors …" which is quite different. That's not a distortion of the existing MOSNUM: it's just my explanation that I wish to ensure that such is not going to be introduced, as that seemed to me to be the tenor of some of the above editors positions. If you don't understand why we're arguing, I suggest you re-examine the tone of your above post, wherein you chose to imply that personal shortcoming such as lack of "fortitude" were behind my choice to not answer. That was simply offensive and unnecessary. LeadSongDog (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LeadSongDog: In the context of using “mebibyte” or not, you focused too much on the “all” and insufficiently on the “general-interest”, which adds quite a bit of specificity. “General interest magazines” means magazines such as PC World and Mac World, which are directed to a general-interest readership. For encyclopedias, that pretty much comprises Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book.
And when I refer to the editors at these publications, I am talking about the editors, not the contributing authors. Encyclopedias hire experts in any given field to write individual articles. But it is the editors who ensure that all copy is edited to have a harmonious writing style throughout and enforce many, many rules of style. In all the above literature, you will not find “mebibytes” and “450 ml” motorcycle engine because they don’t allow people who think the SI should be actively promoted push them into using units of measure that are effectively unheard of in a given discipline and for that level of readership. When I refer to the “editors” or “authors” on Wikipedia, I’m referring to anyone else, which includes complete novices who’ve never before tried their hand at technical writing. They need guidance and sensible rules to help ensure Wikipedia is a high-quality product.
The rest of your arguments—such as those over my “tone and tenor”—amount to nothing more than “sport” arguing. The battles over SI and IEC-prefix promotion raged for two years; getting this crap fixed did not come about by anyone being timid here. So please don’t presume you can tell me how I may think or express my thoughts. Greg L (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit rich. You bold and italicize the words, then claim to expect readers not to focus on them? What turnip truck do you think I fell off of? As for your "“mebibytes” and “450 ml” motorcycle engine" points, you'll note that I started off by saying "FWIW, I'm prepared to accept that we will never find concensus to recommend the IEC binary prefixes", and yet you quickly sprang into vehement protest. Do you actually think that behaviour helps gain support for your positions or speeds resolution to disputes? No wonder it "raged for two years". Insulting people is not a "sport", it's just rude and counterproductive. I'm perfectly aware of the distinction between usages of "editor" as in professional publishing and in Wikipedia. That's why it's called "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Of course you are perfectly free to think what you wish or express your thoughts as you wish. But when your choice is to be rude, it shouldn't surprise you that people take offence. LeadSongDog (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a 'disputed' banner for the whole Units of Measurement. I just wonder whether we really need that. The contents read like this
Units of measurement
4.1 Which system to use
4.2 Follow current literature
4.3 Conversions
4.4 Unit symbols
4.4.1 Binary prefixes
4.5 Unnecessary vagueness
It seems to me that the main disputed parts are 4.2 (which has never had consensus), and 4.4.1 (which used to have consensus but is now disputed). And then I suppose 4.1 is automatically disputed by the presence of 4.2.
Are there any other disputed parts? If not, I propose that we put the disputed tags where they really belong, namely 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4.1. Thunderbird2 (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear from reading this page the current wording does have consensus for section 4.2. I notice you've started to make IEC related edits [6] despite you previously in the same article using different ways to disambiguate. Also especially since the earlier revisions of this article use non-IEC. Why are you now inserting IEC into articles? Especially since I've just checked your recent edit history compared to your older edits and you've switched from using "1GB = 1024 MB ; 1 MB = 1024 KB ; 1 KB = 1024 B" style to now using IEC. It has been agreed that IEC is unfamiliar and more familiar methods are preferable. Fnagaton09:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thunderbird2: Your above post is purely specious garbage. You’re now running around to articles and mucking them up with stupid edits in a vain attempt to “prove” how cumbersome it is to have clarity in byte counts without being able to use the IEC prefixes. Just look at what you did to Bondwell (“The Bondwell-14 had 131,072 byte of memory”). You are now being disruptive to Wikipedia to make your fallacious point. There is no damned reason in the world you couldn’t have gone in and edited “Bondwell” as I had demonstrated in Mac Pro, which you acknowledged as being well done (“You did a good job at Mac Pro, and I admire the effort and energy you put into your writing”) but now conveniently ignore.
Next, I’ll address your allegation that 4.2 (Follow current literature) “never had a consensus” and I will do so by simply repeating what I wrote above: Only on Wikipedia does one ever find such a ridiculous amount of mollycoddling to a vocal minority. One can change the U.S. Constitution, convict the U.S. President in a Senate impeachment trial, and find a party culpable to the tune of millions of dollars in a civil trial with vote balances like this. What’s at stake here is a hell of a lot less important than those examples: whether or not Wikipedia should better conform itself to the practices of professional, print encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica, and use the units overwhelmingly used in the real world on relevant articles. Encyclopedia Britannica uses “megabyte” exclusively in computer articles. Why? Because the rest of the world does too. Encyclopedia Britannica uses “barrels” exclusively in articles about crude oil. The rest of the world does too.
The minority “oppose” element that objects to Follow current literature use arguments like “it opens the door to…”, and “influx of perplexing non-standard…”, and “willy-nilly…”. These arguments are specious and do not withstand the sanitizing scrutiny of the majority of the editors here. There is clearly a general consensus on this issue, and the “support” editors have leaned over backwards to give a full and fair hearing and to solicit the input from those who had anything remotely approaching a constructive suggestion or addressable concern.
If you want to place a {{disputed}} tag on a section, put it on 4.4.1 (“Binary prefixes”), which is now out of compliance with the will of the clear majority of editors here. You have lost any of the moral high ground here as a result of the childish crap you did to Bondwell. I was going to ignore what you did to that article when I discovered it yesterday until I came here and found this shot across the bow. Stop acting like a stubborn child, go with the flow of the level-headed majority here that has spoken clearly, and grow up! Greg L (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It seems to me that {{disputed}} tags are being abused by editors here. They are not supposed to be slapped onto an article by every malcontent who feels he didn’t getting his way and simply wants to protest an outcome and now threatens to hold his breath until he turns blue to get his way. Before a {{disputed}} tag is employed, there is supposed to be an active, good-faith, lengthy discussion involving a significant number of editors on both side of a specific issue. Further, the dispute should prove intractable—maybe even administrators should have intervened. Then the tag should be posted to the relevant section as the issue is actively worked. They are not someone’s personal flag to plant everywhere they have an “issue” with as a means to provoke discussion on something. I’ve seen {{disputed}} tags on articles and there was no active discussion on them in nearly a year. Greg L (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Thunderbird2's "purely specious garbage". Thunderbird's assessment of what's disputed and what has consensus is accurate. How he may have edited Bondwell does not change the fact. One might suggest that before a major change in policy is made, there is supposed to be an active, good-faith, lengthy discussion involving a significant number of editors on both side of a specific issue. JIMptalk·cont18:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More stubborn childishness. Your argument lacks that necessary virtue of being remotely grounded in reality. This issue had been debated for months by well over a dozen editors. Go take it up with an administrator. Greg L (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that the binary prefix war has raged for years without consensus; now this war has spread to all units of measurement on WP, still without consensus; and there now exists a conflict between the new "policy" and a previously established policy. There is a dispute. JIMptalk·cont18:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Greg. The reality is that you moved the binary prefix discussion into a larger scope, using it as an example of a more general point on which you could get wider agreement. And then you admittedly canvassed votes, canvassing ONLY those who had voted for strong wording opposing binary prefixes. And you blithely ignored all requests to even consider removing the binary prefix example from your proposed text, declaring all arguments "refuted" or "invalid", having promoted yourself to the position of arbiter and final judge on the issue even though you clearly have an interest in the outcome. That isn't a legitimate conssensus. Jeh (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia would grind to a halt if {disputed} tags were slapped up everywhere any editor refused to agree with a clear majority after thorough debate had transpired. There is one thing above in Jimp’s post I agree with: “there is dispute.” Tough. Arguments have to end and some point and can’t be allowed to rage forever by caving to a intransigent minority. The very basis of your position starts out on thin ice since you are advocating that Wikipedia communicate like no other general-interest computer magazine nor any other encyclopedia. The notion that Wikipedia should be unique in this regard has been rejected by a clear majority of editors here. Greg L (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So now your argument is "the argument has to end sometime, so I'll declare it ended now while I have a temporary majority for my side"? You know perfectly well you rounded up that majority through canvassing. You SAID so. And you continue to overlook the previous poll results in which a clear majority REJECTED deprecation of binary prefixes. Jeh (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You’re missing the point Tbird. It doesn’t matter who put it there. Always, the first question is whether something is appropriately being done per Wikipedia policy. As I stated above, before a {{disputed}} tag is employed, there is supposed to be an active, good-faith, lengthy discussion involving a significant number of editors on both side of a specific issue. Further, the dispute should prove intractable—maybe even administrators should have intervened. Then the tag can be posted to the relevant section as the issue is actively worked upon. {{Disputed}} tags are not someone’s personal flag to plant everywhere they have an “issue” with something as a means to provoke discussion on something. Saying, “well, I’ve long hated this portion of MOSNUM and still don’t agree with it” isn’t good enough. Hard work must transpire and dispute resolution efforts begun here before Wikipedia’s main pages get mucked up with “I don’t agree” tags.
Do you think Happy-melon thought the {{disputed}} tag was going to stay on MOSNUM until every single “opposer” was happy as a clam? If an administrator takes a look at the current situation and concludes a {{disputed}} tag is warranted, that’s fine. But it was certainly not within your providence to propose duplicating that tag to wherever the “oppose” crowd had a dispute with one issue or another; it doesn’t work that way. Greg L (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are missing the point, which is that there is a raging dispute all over this page that shows no signs of abating. Your endless tirade of rude and unjustified accusations (against me as well as other editors who happen to disagree with you) is tiresome and unconducive to any kind of compromise. I find your tone distasteful and am not prepared to stoop to your level of childishness by responding to the accusations further. I will, however, ask a rhetorical question in the vain hope that it might help you to see sense: how do expect to achieve consensus when you set yourself up as the sole arbiter of what may or may not appear on MOSNUM? Thunderbird2 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MOSNUM rarely sees as heated a dispute as this ... there is the binary prefix war but, well, this is merely the new frontline of that war. If this does not warrant a disputed tag, it's time to take the tag to WP:TFD. By the way, Greg, I'd advise against accusations of vandalism; it won't help you nor will it intimidate me. JIMptalk·cont23:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the disputed banner so that it does not affect those parts that have not been challenged (ie 4.4 except for 4.4.1 and the whole of 4.3 and 4.5). Please leave it like this until the dispute is resolved. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comment: should appropriate conversions be in MOSNUM examples
Template:RFCsci
Should the MOS (dates and numbers) examples include conversions whenever appropriate. Does the absence of a conversion in an example send readers the message that it would be wrong to include a conversion in the situation illustrated by the example?
I believe you are talking about the “Follow current literature” portion, which is quite a bit more specific than the “MOS (dates and numbers) you cited above. This issue of showing conversions of barrels of oil to cubic meters proved quite contentious (see Discussion of “Fourth draft”, above) and I was busy going back and forth on the copy trying to find something that made everyone happy. In the end, the only thing that brought some editors on board was to avoid that example altogether and remain silent on it. The solution, as currently shown in “Follow current literature”, currently shows no conversions for any of those three bullet points. The paragraph that does address parenthetical conversions makes it clear that editors are afforded wide latitude and don’t even have to look to current literature “if there is good reason to do otherwise.”
Note that Wikipedia’s own article on Crude oil production is somewhat mixed on this issue. One section shows a one-time conversion but also features a large chart that is tallied exclusively in barrels. Different editors arrived at different conclusions regarding parenthetical conversions for barrels but all agreed with the notion that the primary unit should be barrel since that is the unit universally used in industry and commerce and is the way current literature deals with it. It was determined that how conversions of barrels are done was nowhere nearly so clearcut and was dependent on exact context. It’s going to be really hard to make progress here if old issues are dredged up over and over. This particular issue was debated and addressed. Why open a can of worms? Greg L (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recent changes have tended to prefer non-SI units if they they are used consistently in modern literature on the subject, to the exclusion of SI units. It must be recognized that in some cases, most readers will be unable to relate the unit to any unit commonly taught in elemetary, middle, and high school, even though the quantity being measured is a simple one (mass, volume, length). In such cases, conversions to SI units should be provided, and the MOSNUM should illustrate this. The current tendency in the MOSNUM is to create barriers for the general reader by relying on specialist units. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current policy is to make Wikipedia more accessible to the general reader by using the units used in current literature on that subject (which also means other encyclopedias). Go check out how Encyclopedia Britannica handles crude oil at Example of Follow current literature, above. Greg L (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using non-SI units that are used in the current literature is good, in that it introduces the general reader to the units used in the subject area, and facilitates further research. Providing SI conversions, in most cases, helps the general reader relate the quantities to units that the reader is already familiar with, and facilitates comparisons to related subjects that use SI units. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How best to communicate that conversions are encouraged? I agree with Gerry, including conversions in the example would be an effective and clear way, in fact I have also called for this. As Lightmouse has written, "A problem for many users is that the current text could be interpreted as *forbidding* SI units." Not including them will be read by some as a proscription. JIMptalk·cont00:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should it surprise anyone here that someone who has consistently opposed every stitch of this common-sense policy should agree with anything it says? Hardly. It was worked on for a long time in good faith by many editors and and consensus agreed upon. You don’t have to agree with the consensus. You have to agree to Wikipedia’s rules of conduct and accept the consensus. Greg L (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to accept consensus where consensus can be shown. I believe you'll find consensus is for rather than against the provision of conversions. Now there are three of us who seem would prefer conversions to be included in the examples, I don't think that that's a big ask. JIMptalk·cont02:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would nuance what Jimp said. I see no need for conversion of metric to SI units if the conversion is just a matter of shifting the decimal point a bit, and would be obvious to most people familiar with metric units. So there is no need to provide a conversion for motorcycle engine displacements that use the abbreviation "cc". Also, there is no need to provide a conversion if the resulting unit will be throughly unintuitive to all concerned, as in the case of the gal. But whenever there is a special unit that is confined to one field (barrel of oil, troy ounce of gold), and the quantity being measured is also measured in SI units in many other fields (volume, mass) then a conversion should certainly be provided. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion, instead of an example based on oil (barrels and/or m3), an example based on production of alcoholic beverages could be attempted. This is old stuff: there was a discussion about this some years ago. If I remember well, European Union in its legislation uses hectolitres (as is of course also most customary in France for their wine production). In the US units are more diverse, if I remember well in rare cases including hectolitres as well. Would that be more suitable as an example, if the oil/barrels/other units example is still too contentious? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken: I appreciate your suggestion for compromise. If I thought there was any chance that compromise with these particular holdouts would accomplish anything, I would do it in a heartbeat. Note my previous post in which I asked Jimp “So, in return for a concession, are you going to make peace with us on the general policy?”. No commitment yet from him on that point. Note also that Thunderbird2 has in the past said he wanted a certain concession from us (he wanted it mentioned in “Follow current literature” as to why the IEC prefixes were first developed in order to show that they were virtuous) and said “To gain my support you need to make clear that the MiB does have a valuable role to play.” So I added that. Also per his stated requirement to gain his support, I dropped mention of the uno (another proposed unit of measure that ‘bit the dust’ which was intended to address language-dependent ambiguity). In the end, he elected to stay out of the voting until after I declared that a general consensus had been achieved (an 8:3 vote with no new “oppose” votes in over two days). And then all he could muster was a “1” vote.
I’ve learned much here on Wikipedia about how some people negotiate and operate. Tbird may protest that I feel betrayed over his vote but just pardon me all over if my worldview is that actions speak louder than words. I’m not at all bitter about this because I half expected it. But fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Not surprisingly, certain editors here (some of whom were responsible for the “Binary prefix” policy two years ago), don’t agree with the fundamental point of “Follow current literature” and its call for no longer using them. That’s pretty fundamental and this nit picking around the edges simply amounts to harassing maneuvers. It’s clear that Jimp, if his future actions remain consistent with his past, is one of those who is fundamentally opposed to this entire section and has “issues” with it that are highly unlikely to be satisfied with minor tweaking. The principal of “assume good faith” does not require that I suspend common sense. I believe this incessant nagging over some of the guideline’s details amounts to nothing more than that—nagging—and will not result in any more support from the “oppose” crowd.
It is better that we get other admins (or a Bureaucrat) involved here to address Omegatron’s improperly taking sides on an issue in which he had been active by posting the lower {{disputed}} tag here. Hopefully, this will also lead to a ruling on whether “Follow current literature” was also properly adopted. A much greater majority of editors weighed in on “Follow current literature” in good faith to help craft the best possible wording that satisfied diverse—and often divergent—views. In the end, no way could be found to accommodate the wishes of those who fundamentally oppose it—notwithstanding some of my efforts with Thunderbird2.
For some items it is not necessary to provide the conversion. I think "barrels of oil" is one of those. A single link to Barrel#Oil_barrel or a footnote would be acceptable. A conversion to liters, tons or cubic meters for each mention of barrels would make a very dreary and tedious read. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barrel of oil is about as unfamiliar a unit as you're likely to find. Only people involved in the oil industry ever actually make a measurement with this unit. We hear it reported in the news all the time, but hearing it is not the same as making measurements with it. So if barrels of oil don't need to be converted, neither do feet, miles, metres, or stones.
If an article contains a large number of conversions, it could become cumbersome. In that case, it might be useful to provide a footnote with the conversion factor. Another alternative is to only provide a conversion the first time a particular value occurs, which would be useful if the same value is repeated several times. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think the examples should have conversions. I alluded to the same thing up above in #Discussion of “Fourth draft”, that we should also convert barrels of oil to cubic meters. But as Swtpc6800 stated a few lines above me, we shouldn't also convert to liters and tons every time as well. I could maybe understand an isolated instance, but every time in one article would be a dreary read. I think a little common sense would dictate when to convert to m³ and when to convert to L; 3 barrels (477 L), 50 barrels (7.95 m³). —MJCdetroit(yak)13:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see cubes like this in the movies or TV all that often. Do you? I thought I had brought peace on the issue by separating the issue of “units to use” and “conversions”. None of the three bullet point examples show conversions. Why would someone think the oil example should be treated differently? I think that some editors fear that not showing a conversion for any of the three bullet points ‘signals something for the opposition to size upon.’ I believe this attitude is wrong way to look at this and is a lack of ‘assuming good faith.’ The entire subject of conversions is handled in the ‘conversions’ paragraph, which makes it clear that there is very wide latitude on conversions and it’s context-sensitive.
You may recall that I originally had an oil conversion in that paragraph but removed it to make peace on this very issue. As for a Gerry Ashton’s argument that a barrel of oil “is about as unfamiliar a unit as you're likely to find”, I think someone would have had to have spent their entire life in a cave to have not seen actual barrels of oil on the TV; it’s standard “B-roll” footage (0.3 meterage) whenever there is a news piece on crude oil production. Even a standard chemical drum (55 U.S. gallons) is close enough to a 42-gallon oil drum to get the gist across (and chemical drums are terribly ubiquitous on TV and in the movies). In my mind, an argument that readers coming to Wikipedia have no sense of the magnitude of a barrel is specious and doesn’t even pass the “grin” test. Further, one or two barrels of oil or one or two cubic meters of oil is something I can imagine. When you talk about nine million barrels of oil (or 1.4 million cubic meters), no one has an true sense whatsoever of such enormous magnitudes; in such contexts, they become nothing more than relative values of dimensionless quantities (Saudi Arabia exports about nine times more than Venezuela, or total production has declined 10% over a certain number of years).
I’m not saying that disambiguations of barrels to cubic meters can’t or shouldn’t be provided here on Wikipedia—they already are in our own Crude oil production article. I’m saying that the disambiguations to cubic meters don’t appear very often in that article and are very rarely used in the press. How Wikipedia currently handles it in Crude oil production (a few disambiguations in choice places) makes perfect sense and I’m perfectly at peace with the way it’s currently done. But showing a disambiguation to barrels as an example here takes on new significance for those battling on the broader issue. It also opened a can of worms because Canadian oil production is sometimes expressed in terms of cubic meters directly. Consequently, certain editors complained about how cubic meters as a parenthetical was taking a back seat to barrels for Canadian oil. For all the above reasons, barrels seemed a poor example to use in the ‘conversions’ paragraph.
If a broad consensus on this point can be reached by those here, then that’s fabulous. The trouble is that interest in this issue has waned. There are a limited number of editors active on this issue as compared to when tweaking of “Fourth draft” was in full force. Also, I believe that those other editors who flat out oppose everything “Follow current literature” represents (stripping away universal, flat out promotion of the SI in cases when an industry consistenly uses other units) simply want these poor choices inserted merely as a way of eroding the guideline and making its intent unclear. Go ask Jimp or Thunderbird2 or Gene Nygaard if they are going to sign on and officially support “Follow current literature” if we show a conversion for barrels. I have my prediction on that one. Greg L (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greg L wrote "I think someone would have had to have spent their entire life in a cave to have not seen actual barrels of oil on the TV". I don't recall ever seeing an actual oil barrel on TV, or in real life. This is probably because crude oil has not been stored in "official" oil barrels for a very long time; these days it is transported in supertankers and pipelines. Small quantities of refined oil products might be stored in barrels or drums of some kind, but whether those would be the same volume as the "official" oil barrels, I don't know. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the example by changing Saudia Arabia to Texas; this avoids the concern that in some articles cubic meters should be used, since that is the unit used in some countries; clearly barrels are the unit of choice in Texas. I also added a link to a real source, to further bolster the idea that the literature is being followed. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You already have asked me, Greg, and are waiting for a reply. Excuse my keeping you waiting but I think your prediction is probably just about spot on. "This issue ..." you claim "proved quite contentious" refering us to Discussion of “Fourth draft”. Shall we examine the section? There are nine names up there: Gerry Ashton, Lightmouse and me calling for the inclusion of the conversion in the example; MJCdetroit showing support for inclusion; Headbomb, LeadSongDog, Anderson and a recent anon mostly discussiong other issues thus not really showing any strong preference either way (do point it out if I'm wrong); and you, Greg, resisting this suggestion. There's your contention.
The whole while you attempted to appease us by insisting that the proposal was silent on whether oil barrel should be converted and thus the absence of a conversion should not be taken as an implication that no conversion should be given. We, on the other hand, have maintained that, regardless of the intent, this is how it will be read. Our position stems from the simple fact that people learn primarily from example rather than rule, a fact underlying Francis' excellent guidance on the role of examples. I put it to you, Greg, that you are fully aware of the potential effect of the ommission of conversions from the examples and that it is your intent to discourage conversion of oil barrels to cubic metres.
Let us, therefore, return to the two questions posed at the top of this section.
Should the MOS (dates and numbers) examples include conversions whenever appropriate. Does the absence of a conversion in an example send readers the message that it would be wrong to include a conversion in the situation illustrated by the example?
Do you not agree, Greg? You write "I’m not saying that disambiguations of barrels to cubic meters can’t or shouldn’t be provided here on Wikipedia", however, I can't help but interpret you that way. Greg, you refer us to Encyclopædia Britannica and the press noting how they use only barrels, you put the idea that readers may be unfamiliar with the 42-US-gallon oil barrel to the grin test. You write that "no one has an true sense whatsoever of such enormous magnitudes", speak for yourself. One million cubic metres is one cubic hectametre, the volume of a cube with edges twice the length of an Olympic swimming pool. One million barrels ... um ... 2,100 in × 3,300 in × 1,400 in ... um. Let's not make assumptions on what readers can and can easily visualise. Conversions to SI/metric are helpful and supported by consensus as I read it.
The argument against conversion of barrels to cubic metres seems to be that "the literature" doesn't do this and that too many conversions make for a "very dreary and tedious read". {Precisely Enough said about that point. Greg L (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)} I'd suggest that an article with that many mentions of barrels within the prose is already very dreary and tedious and that the increase in dreariness and tediousness introduced by conversons is worth the extra comprehensibility and that the article should probably be reorganised to move the quoted quantities to a table, list, etc. Nor do I see why we can't do better than "the literature" by making our articles more accessible to those more familiar with the metric system than the US customary one.[reply]
Why all the fuss over oil barrels? "Why would someone think the oil example should be treated differently?" Gerry summed it up succinctly with "I see no need for conversion of metric to SI units if the conversion is just a matter of shifting the decimal point a bit, and would be obvious to most people familiar with metric units." We agree that µGal/cm should not be converted to s−2 and that "cc" need not be rewritten using the standard SI symbol. These other two need no conversion (though a conversion to imperial/US units might be included).
So, nothing to be accomplish by allowing this compromise with these particular holdouts? What we accomplish is sending the correct message to editors, that conversions are generally encouraged rather than discouraged, in accordance with wide long-standing consensus. If this be the will of editors, let it be. The text of MOSNUM won't be the result of some bargain struck between you and me, Greg. It's not up to you to allow me this nor is it up to me to allow you that. MOSNUM should reflect consensus. This is but one step in that direction. I'm not about to stop with this one. I hope we make all the steps necessary to achieve a state of consensus on this and then we can have peace.
For many articles crude oil are about trends, consumption up 20%. The typical reader cannot fathom the exact size of 86 million barrels or 13,700,000 m3. They are not designing oil storage tanks, so they don't have to calculate how much sheet steel to purchase to build the tanks. If all of the popular publications are using barrels, that should suffice here on Wikipedia. Excessive conversions make the text difficult to read. It appears that here on MOSNUM, exact accuracy trumps readable and understandability. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Swtpc6800. Well said. Your plain-speak helps to pull some of us out of the stratosphere of rediculous details at times. Greg L (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gerry. I reverted your edit. Your argument that “barrels of oil” is a “Texas” convention is beyond fallacious. You know, or should know, that all trade and commerce throughout the world has standardized on barrels of oil. Go try to find a commodities broker quoting the cost of oil per cubic meters and compare it to the number of sources quoting in barrels of oil. Barrels is a world-wide standard and your attempt to suggest that it is a “U.S. convention” is transparent on the face of it as nothing less than an attempt to erode the essential point. You know full well that the current cost of crude is universally reported in barrels; as in US$120/barrel, and is not $755/cubic meter. Any suggestion otherwise flies in the face of all reality and Wikipedia’s own Crude oil production article, which is primarily (as it should be) in barrels.
This section was extensively discussed by a wide number of editors. Many, many revisions were made in order to arrive at a compromise solution that satisfied a clear and wide majority of the editors. It is improper for those who simply oppose the guideline altogether to try to get their way for the wholesale promotion of the SI in disciplines that consistently use other units of measure, by employing misleading edits on the guideline. Greg L (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe your stated motivations. I think you hate and despise the metric system, and your revision is an intermediate step. You intend to degrade the example to make it easier for you to argue against it. Your other motivation is you think you own this section. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a real problem if you really feel that way. I am a gigantic fan of the SI system. If you read my post above (Continuing discussion on Third draft), you’d understand this. My only motivation is to bring Wikipedia in line with the way other professional publications and encyclopedias deal with various subjects. Greg L (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with Greg's reverting, it should be "Saudi Arabian" for almost the exact reasons given by Greg L. Most current literature uses barrels. Therefore our preference should be to use barrels and place cubic meters in parenthesis whether the oil is Texan, Albertan, or Saudi. As Jimp indicated, we should always use conversions to promote understanding— even in examples. Have you even heard, "If you give someone an inch, they'll take a mile"? My experience (and probably Jimp's experience) tells us that this is exactly what someone will do if you don't have conversions within your examples. Wikipedia is full of POV-pushing people just waiting for their inch to be granted so they can take advantage of some loophole. I've see it before. Greg make the change and let's move on. —MJCdetroit(yak)03:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I will start right now to add an example conversion for barrels. I propose to add it into the ‘conversions’ paragraph. Yes? Greg L (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've removed the conversion claiming "This issue had been thoroughly discussed during the drafting of the guideline and dropped due to a clear lack of consensus". (Could we not apply this argument to the entire proposal?) If there wasn't much in the way of a clear consensus before, there seems to be one forming now ... or is this discussion just too late ... or too childish ridiculous and extremist? The conversion should remain in the example. What you've replaced it with is nothing close to what is being called for here. JIMptalk·cont05:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jimp, the dispute tag is over “Follow current literature” because the minority oppose all that “Follow current literature” represents. Fine. So we now need to edit towards a greater consensus in good faith. The trouble is that the very conversion you added had previously been thoroughly discussed and wasn’t supported by the majority. It therefore is a step backwards, not forwards. If any progress is going to occur here, it’s best not to begin with edits you know full well the majority would disapprove of. At the suggestion of MJCdetroit, I tried adding a conversion that pretty much mirrors how it’s currently done on Crude oil production. You stripped it out, claiming it isn’t nearly enough. What exactly do you want? If you get the conversion you are asking for, are you going to drop your opposition to this proposal (?) or do you want even more? Greg L (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do I want even more than this small and very well justified concession? One thing I don't want is for MOSNUM to be a reflexion of some deal struck between two warring editors one afternoon in May 2008. It must reflect consensus. This conversion was discussed before, yes; was it not supported by the majority? Did the majority even mention it? The head-count I did of the section you pointed out above sure showed that, of those who specifically mentioned this issue, a majority were in favour of the inclusion of the conversion—everyone but you, Greg, to be precise. Is there another section that I'm missing. So, it was discussed, it's now being discussed again and thoroughly. SWTPC6800 has sided with your stance but the general feeling remains that the example should include the appropriate conversion. You mention that it was a conversion I added, I re-added it after it was removed by you, Greg. Gerry added it first. It most certainly was no step backwards: for all the reasons explained at length here we are better off with our examples' including appropriate conversions. It is clear that you don't believe that conversions from barrels to cubic metres is appropriate, now this I'll assure you is a minority view ... no, I don't need to assure you just look at the comments here.
I am happy to work in good faith (e.g. without accusations of vandalism) towards a greater consensus. This is exactly what the addition of this conversion was doing: moving towards a position better supported by consensus. This is progress. If it's further progress we want, we must continue the discussion not cling to our favourite snapshot of an old vote claiming this as a mandate to do exactly whatever we like. Yes, it is "best not to begin with edits you know full well the majority would disapprove of", like removing a well supported and well justified conversion from a list of examples.
We're asking for examples to include appropriate conversions so as not to mislead editors. Specifically, if we're using oil barrels, an example the form "x barrels (y m³)" as would appear in the text of an article. Note that it is but one article and that wiki articles are always up for improvement but Crude oil production, which you keep refering us to, includes several such conversions. Now the table lacks conversions but that can easily be put down to the fact that nobody has taken the task up as yet, perhaps I should give it a crack. This is just one article; there are many involving barrels, conversions to cubic metres are quite common amongst these. What you had had was a rough approximation of what a million barrels is. That's not what you see out the in WP. That's not what you see on Crude oil production.
You ask me what it is exactly that I want. Aren't you getting tired of reading my posts asking for this and demanding that? In a nutshell, though, I want an encyclopædia which is not afraid to communicate information in as clear, consistant and widely comprehensible fashion as possible. Do you not want about the same?
Jimp, how we communicate (convey, exchange, impart) information (data, facts, details) in a clear (obvious, comprehensible, lucid), consistent (recurring, stable) and widely (broadly, commonly) comprehensible (understandable, logical, coherent) fashion (manner, technique, scheme)? An excess of conversions provides more information but impedes comprehension. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Examples in MOSNUM should conform to the WP:MOSNUM#Conversions section, which begins with "Conversions to and from metric and US units are generally provided. There are exceptions, including. . ." Presently, the fact that an article has many quantities in it, and providing a conversion for each one might impede comprehension, is not listed as an exception (although the list of exceptions is not meant to be exhaustive). Furthermore, examples usually depict only a few quantities, and conversions are appropriate when there are only a few quantities in an article. So both to conform to the Conversions section, and because the implied context is just a few quantities, MOSNUM examples should usually provide conversions.
If you want to put some guidance under the list of exceptions to conversions to explain what to do in articles with many quantities, go ahead, as far as I'm concerned. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of conversions can make the text incomprehensible to those who are unfamiliar with that unit. As I noted above, if the text is so heavy with units, it should generally be reoragnised as a list, table, etc. JIMptalk·cont19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I do appreciate the wittiness of your response, SWTPC6800, but the reality is more like this "... how we жέφљæŋ (communicate) めかの (information) in a ₯₴₰₮ (clear), яǚʍʘ (consistent) and 漁嚙駝遽 (widely) ¢э₫ʂœπ (comprehensible) ｦﾋｿﾚﾙ (fashion) ..." JIMptalk·cont18:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t see any evidence that trying to accommodate any of the “oppose” elements’ concerns accomplishes anything. There was a clear majority of editors who discussed conversions of barrels to cubic meters and they had opposing points of view on that issue that just couldn’t be reconciled due to various complexities. Given that the “oppose” elements here object to the very essence of this proposal, it should come as no surprise that after MJCdetroit and I tried to accommodate one “oppose” editor’s wishes by allowing Jimp to show the problematic conversion exactly like he wanted, yet another “oppose” editor (T-bird) comes along only hours latter and slaps the {disputed} tag right back on the whole section. May I assume that the “oppose” crowd will insist on maintaining that this section is “disputed” so long as the guideline calls for simply “following current literature” on various subjects? If so, I suggest we go to arbitration on this; the differences among the parties seem intractable. Greg L (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that Greg L is editing on the basis of which "side" an editor is on, and will not accept suggestions from his opposition. This state of affairs does indeed require arbitration. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, I don't get it, though, just a few hours ago you seemed okay with the inclusion of the conversion even putting it into {{val}}. Now you remove it yet again. This is obviously in retaliation to Thunderbird2's placing of the disputed tag. Is this the game we're playing? The section is disputed ... can you not accept this? The majority (including MJCdetroit) here now support this conversion ... not just me ... and in the form that it had been in (this is not just exactly like I wanted but exactly what's being discussed). Yet you keep refering to some past discussion ... and exactly which past discussion was it, for the one you pointed to at the begining of this section showed a majority in support also? But these are different issues: giving appropriate example should not be contingent on whether or not this heated dispute as acknowledged on the page. You see nothing to be gained by providing examples with appropriate conversions so that editors won't be mislead into thinking that conversions are discouraged. What do you want to accomplish, having them mislead? JIMptalk·cont19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jimp, the first edit was my suggested solution to MJCdetroit’s suggestion that we accomodate your wishes and show a conversion. It was an entirely new idea—a proposed new solution whereby a conversion was packaged up in the ‘conversions’ paragraph—not a “reverting” of any sort whatsoever. Your now seem to be taking good-faith proposals that you don’t like and are trying to label them as “revertings”. P-u-h-l-e-e-z-e, who are you trying to kid? If you want to make progress here, try a little “assuming good faith”. Greg L (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jimp & Thunderbird2: Since addressing a concern you had been making a big deal out of didn’t seem to resolve anything (T-bird put the {disputed} tag right back in after Jimp got precisely what he had been asking for), Fifth draft, below, is provided. Let’s see what you guys are trying to accomplish. Greg L (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calls to assume good faith from someone who only a few days ago called me a vandal seem a little rich. Gerry added the conversion as discussed here. You removed it. I put it back. You removed it. I put it back again. You removed it. So, the first removal replaced it with something completely different don't pretend that MJCdetroit suggested this, this was you own idea. The "example conversion" bears no resembalence whatsoever to what we are calling for here, what you removed. The addition of this which came along with the reversion was a seperate addition tagged on. Try a little "assuming good faith", ay? Why do you think we're discussing this here & not at WP:AN3? JIMptalk·cont23:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, my first edit in your “3RR” list was “my idea”—something new. And you didn’t like it one bit. I’m not a mind reader. Nor are any of the other seven editors who bothered to post a “support” vote for “Fourth draft” (after a huge amount of debate). So why don’t you guys show precisely what you want on Fifth draft, below? Greg L (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution sure seems in favour of Omegatron to me. Note also, DavidPaulHamilton, that the resolution of the issue as to whether Omegatron was in the wrong doesn't change the fact that the section is disputed. The issue of whether the tag should be replaced is still unresolved. JIMptalk·cont05:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did use the words "seems ... to me". The tag was added with the statement "And your response will be much the same." directed towards you, Greg, with respect to your suggestion of "kick it up to a more suitable forum". And the response in question was: case-closed without any action taken against Omegatron. Now, assuming Omegatron had been in the wrong, does that change the fact that "Follow current literature" is disputed? There is a dispute, surely you recognise that. That there exists a dispute is sufficient cause to have the tag there—the tag does nothing more than acknowledge this fact. These are two different issues. This is my interpretation is it not accurate? JIMptalk·cont06:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely and on the same token, had Omegatron been punished, that would not mean the section were undisputed. These are two different questions, that's just what I'm saying. There is a dispute, you've been involved in it, DavidPaulHamilton, ever since you joined WP (assuming you're not a sock). There's your case for adding the tag, plain and simple. Of course, you'll want to argue that the points raised against the proposal are insubstantial ... show us your counter arguments. JIMptalk·cont23:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not decided by majority rule or votes. I don't know how many times we need to say this to get it across. An "8:3" majority does not demonstrate consensus, especially when most of the people opposing the policy refused to participate in the vote, or have been avoiding the discussion altogether due to the increasingly hostile atmosphere fostered by Greg L. A few days of voting between a handful of sympathetic people is not sufficient to decide something that's been debated for years by dozens of people.
"It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons."
The vote was stacked. Greg L specifically invited only people who had voted "Support" in the past. This is very improper behavior, and goes against all our notions of consensus and cooperation. Even if votes were a valid way of creating guidelines (they aren't), the vote would be invalidated by this.
The fact that all of these people are still discussing this demonstrates that it's still under heavy dispute and should not be in the guideline at all. In fact, I'd say the discussion is hopelessly polarized, and I don't see it coming to any kind of resolution without formal mediation. — Omegatron (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the above is your opinion. The charge of canvassing is so slanted and misleading. I was entirely up-front and open about contacting the previous “support” editors. I did so “out in the open” and had nothing to hide. Those editors had voted on previous votes and then had the entire issue moved numerous times off of Talk:MOSNUM to hard-to-find backwater venues by opponents of this policy who somehow always manage to magically know how to game the system and work in a highly coordinated fashion. Because of these tactics, the issue was off these editors’ radar screens and they had every right to know they were now disenfranchised and their original votes were completely meaningless. I feel like a civil rights advocate working in the deep south, trying to alert poor votes than the voting precinct “magically got moved” and the cops are trying to kick my ass for it.
As an involved administrator, you have no more say than any other ordinary editor here. Further, given the fact that you were the lead proponent of the misguided policy this new one replaces, your opinion can not realistically be viewed as being unbiased. It is obvious on the face of it that there was a clear majority in favor of this; the only possible question is whether that properly meets all the requirements of a Wikipedia-style consensus. But it’s mighty notable that we had an uninvolved editor with plenty of experience in Wikipedia policy issues weigh in on this issue, Francis Schonken, who wrote “A rough consensus seems to have formed” and congratulated me on helping to get the policy on MOSNUM. And that was before the most recent vote. So just pardon me all over the place if I might feel there is some room for legitimate debate on whether or not a consensus was properly arrived at here.
If you want to go to mediation, that’s fine. I actually feel that going to ArbCom for “refusal to accept consensus” is the more appropriate venue. Either way, you make the call. In the mean time, it is absolutely improper of you to delete “Follow current literature.” Go find an uninvolved administrator to remove it. Why would you abuse your power as an administrator against the wishes of so many other editors? Greg L (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked and see that both 2wire.com and dslreports.com use variations of bps: 2wire uses Mbps and dslreports uses Kbps. My recollection is that this is the way my print magazines handle the issue. If you go to Motorola’s Web site and look up their SB5120 technical specs, it states “when connected to a DOCSIS 2.0 cable network, [is] capable of up to 30 Mbps”. Let’s conjecture for the moment that this short analysis is a true indicator of what that discipline’s usual practice is. If so, what do you think is the right thing to do here? Greg L (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might also add that MOSNUM can’t possibly have a an explicit policy for every known odd unit of measure; it would become quite bloated if it did, don’t you think? I would suggest that if the computer/telecom industry is indeed consistently or near-consistently using Kbps or Mbps (big ‘if’), then MOSNUM actually is not at all silent on this isue and provides all the necessary information to guide editors to do the right thing. Greg L (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every new car sold in the United States must display an "EPA Fuel Economy Estimate" sticker showing the "City MPG" and "Highway MPG". www.fueleconomy.gov The label requirements can be found here. [7] Someone earlier proposed that Wikipedia follow the units that are required by law. I guess that MPG must be used for Miles Per Gallon. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a good example of the problem with following the current literature. Firstly, what exactly does "the literature" say? Greg just checked a couple of sites and found the versions with "p"s to predominate, of course, he won't claim that to be conclusive but how far will we have to look? Secondly, suppose we manage to do a thorough unbaised extensive balanced examination of the literature and find a slight predominance of the "p" versions. Are we bound then to use these? Can we as Wikipedia editors not decide on our own house style? The solidus the standard way of expressing it is much more common and familiar than the versions using "p" (with a couple of traditional exceptions). It is much clearer (especially to the non-specialist) what "kbit/s" as compared to "kbps" would mean. JIMptalk·cont05:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jimp: The short answer to “…but how far will we have to look?”, the answer is: just far enough to see a clear pattern. As editors, we’ve solved tougher problems than this. Greg L (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
T-bird: I like the scientific purity of what you desire. Note however on a related note, that I’m sure we’d find if we went to any other general-interest encyclopedia, we’d find MPH being used for auto speeds, not “mile/hour”, or “mi/hr” or some other variation on that theme. If Wikipedia had a real and genuine influence on usage in the real world, then that would be a different matter; the confusion caused by unfamiliar symbols would be offset by affecting the slow adoption of the “right” way of doing things and would be doing good. But MPH will be just as common ten years from now as it is today. And ten years from now a unit symbol other than MPH will be just as confusing for many people.
In this particular case, I don’t have a major problem with “kbit/s” because someone who is reasonably familiar with computer terminology will be able to very easily parse it. For me, after having been away from that particular unit of measure for a while, I have to parse out “Kbps” in my mind to figure out what it means. OK: capital K, that’s the perverted kilo; lower-case b, that’s bits, not bytes… etc. However, that’s just me. As an SI-using engineer, I’m more familiar with the SI than most.
Very many readers who will be going to the article you are editing will have likely read only Kbps or Mbps in their owners manual, or will have gone to any number of speed-testing sites and will see the very same thing. Thus “kbit/s”, which is damn easy—at least for me—to interpret, will simply be unfamiliar to many readers. I would say that if you are going to use the version that is SI-compliant, I’m not going to soil my pants over this one. I would advise however, that if you find other readers/editors change it (someone who hasn’t been a party to all this arguing going on here), that you understand that they probably aren’t being “stubborn”; they probably had a WTF! reaction and were initially unfamiliar with what they were looking at. Remember, not everyone is scientifically minded, some people don’t truly parse and “understand” the unit of measure; it’s an abstracted symbol—like a Chinese character—and all they know is it’s different and isn’t the same thing they saw on their speed-test Web screen ten minutes earlier. That would be a signal that we need to go back to Technical Writing 101 and use the units of measure common to that industry to best avoid confusion—even if it’s a bastard child of a unit that breaks rules.
Note this too about how Encyclopedia Britannica handles units: they often don’t use abbreviations and stick with writing a unit of measure out if it isn’t repeated too often in the article. For instance, they might write “256 megabytes” instead of “256 MB”. Clearer you know; not everyone has read up on a subject and become familiar with terminology before going to an encyclopedia. Greg L (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, here's my suggestion. Current wording reads
The symbol for the bit is ‘bit’, not ‘b’. The byte may be represented by either one of the symbols ‘B’ and ‘byte’, but not ‘b’ or ‘o’ (French octet). Unless explicitly stated otherwise, one byte is eight bits. Decimal or binary prefix symbols may be added to either unit symbol. The choice of decimal or binary should be made with regard to common usage in the subject area, and clarification is recommended.
I've added the proposed text - please feel free to tweak details. The reason I came back here though was to take up the last point from Greg's post they often don’t use abbreviations and stick with writing a unit of measure out if it isn’t repeated too often in the article. I think this is good advice, and seems within the scope of MOSNUM. Should we add it? Thunderbird2 (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes, and MB/s and Mbit/s would seem a logical extension of that; hence my suggestion."
Yes, that's what I meant to say. I thought we had already agreed on these at some time in the far past. And the first instance should be linked (kbit/s), though this is already mentioned elsewhere on the page. — Omegatron (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that a minority of editors will not agree there is consensus despite the strong arguments and evidence for the consensus. Do not place disputed tags unless it is supported by substantive reasoning and do not replace the tag unless everyone involved is willing to agree to formal mediation. If anyone places back the tag in the near future then they will be demonstrating they are not interested in formal mediation.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other solution is for everyone involved to agree they will not add any further disputed tags unless it really is shown there is clear consensus for having the tag added. Repeatedly adding the tag without strong reason to do so is counterproductive. DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever considered looking around you? The “substantive evidence” you are looking for is all over this page. Jeh, Jimp, Lightmouse, Thunderbird2 and Tony have voted against the text and a further 3 (Gene Nygaard, Jim77742 and LeadSongDog) have argued against it but have not voted. Finally, from Greg L’s edit summary (his emphasis) "and this section is STILL disputed". That makes 9 editors disputing the content of the section. How much more evidence do you need? Thunderbird2 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK wrote on the Wikiquette alert: “Consensus is not all editors in 100% happy agreement, and never has been.” And as Francis Schonken (talk) wrote on my talk page: “A rough consensus seems to have formed.” {here} And that was before we went through the whole exercise with “Fourth draft”. All progress on Wikipedia would grind to a halt if “consensus” meant 100% buy-in. One editor, Crissov, wrote “I support metric-only with the exception of defining source units –, I indeed consider all articles that are (or, rather, should be) in Wikipedia to be scientific, because science is not just physics and chemistry. (By the way, there is no justification for the use of imperial units in WP at all, where they differ from their US counterparts.)” {here}. Now isn’t that a slick little loophole: simply state that you consider all articles to be intrinsically scientific in nature in order to exploit an existing MOSNUM guideline and continue to do things your own way. How is anyone supposed to get 100% buy-in when there are editors with such divergent views? The answer is: it often can’t happen. That’s the simple reality and sometimes you go when a clear majority agree on the basic principle. The important thing is to make sure the process by which a new policy was developed gave everyone a full chance to participate and have their input full and fairly considered by all. In this case we did—in spades. And then went the extra mile (1.6 km) with “Fourth draft”. Greg L (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use terminology and symbols commonly employed in the current literature for that subject and level of technicality. When in doubt, use the units of measure, prefixes, unit symbols, number notation, and methods of disambiguation most often employed in reliable periodicals directed to a similar readership.
The objective of technical writing is to communicate with minimal confusion so that readers can learn about a subject and are primed as well as possible to learn even more in their studies elsewhere. There are three important elements in determining what terminology and units of measure are best suited for a given article:
Preference for international units
Wikipedia generally prefers international systems of measurement, such as the SI, over U.S. customary units or the imperial system. Unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, write "It was 1.83 meters (6 ft) tall", not the reverse.
Discipline-specific practices
Wherever a discipline consistently uses its own units—either conventional or non-SI metric—this should be followed, since our readers should be able to converse with those knowledgeable in the discipline. For example:
“a 450 cc Honda motorcycle engine” and never “a 450 ml” or “450 cm3 Honda motorcycle engine”;
“Saudi Arabia exported 9.0 million barrels of crude”, but not “Saudi Arabia exported 1.43 million cubic meters of crude”;
“a gravity gradient of 3.1 µGal/cm”, not “a gravity gradient of 3.1×10−6 s–2”, in the science of gravimetry.
Parenthetical conversions should be given where appropriate and should generally also follow the practices in current literature on that subject unless there is good reason to do otherwise. Often the conversions will be to modern systems. To retain accuracy when quoting sources, editors should generally use the units used by your cited source as the primary value for that particular measurement. The selection of units for parenthetical conversion throughout an article is highly dependent on the subject matter. Even within the narrow discipline of piston engines in ground transportation, there is a range of permissible ways to show conversions; there is often no best way. For instance, writing "a 450 cc (450 cm3) motorcycle engine" is inappropriate even though it is in conformance with the SI; simply linking the first instance of “cc” to the Cubic centimeter article is sufficient. Writing "the Ford 351 Cleveland engine had an actual displacement of 351.9 cubic inches (5,766 cc)” is appropriate for a historical, American-made engine. And writing "the Dodge 5.7 L Hemi has a displacement of 5,654 cc (345.0 in3)" is appropriate for a modern, American-label engine that is classified in liters. But writing "the Ferrari Dino V12 engine has a displacement of 334.0 cubic inches" would be inappropriate in an article primarily about a European-made sports car.
Level of difficulty(Do not write over the heads of the readership)
For some topics, there are multiple modern systems of measurement to choose from but some would generally be unsuitable for use in articles directed to a general-interest readership. For instance, the Planck units would typically be suitable only for advanced articles directed to expert readers—for example, an article on the mathematics of black hole evaporation—whereas an article on black holes directed to a general-interest readership should describe their mass in terms of solar mass. Level of difficulty also applies to the decision as to whether or not scientific notation should be employed in an article and, if so, at what magnitude it should begin. Here again, editors should look towards current literature on that subject for guidance in selecting level-appropriate units of measure, unit symbols, number notation, and terminology.
Discussion of the 5th draft
I tweaked the sentence in Preference for international units section so that it does not appear to involve human height. I also abbreviated foot to ft, as it is suggested elsewhere in the mosnum.—MJCdetroit(yak)12:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "binary prefix" example paragraph. GregL, if you are truly interested in achieving consensus on this "follow current literature" point, you should not object to the removal of such a hotly debated and WP:POINT-y "example." Jeh (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First instance should be linked
Currently, it says "articles on scientific topics where there is consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units, in which case the first occurrence of each unit should be linked"
I want to tweak this a little, but I'm not sure about wording:
It's not just scientific topics where there is consensus not to convert from metric. I'd say almost every unit (besides the very common ones like km or kg?) should be linked at least once, for people who are unfamiliar with them (which would likely include everyone, statistically).
It's not just the first instance, either, but "the first instance in a while". For instance, if you mention megatons in the 8th section of an article, and the last reference to the unit was in the first section, you should include another link in the 8th. But of course we should not link every instance. This is already made more clear in Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context
The link for a unit abbreviation should always go to a written-out article name, so that it can be hovered over for a reminder. (µPa or pCi, but not MeV)
I had a feeling long ago when I dropped my objection to including that scientific topic stuff that someone would try to use that as an excuse for expanding it to other areas....oh it won't happen they said...and here you are greasing up the slope. If anything it's time to repeal that. As for linking of almost every unit, I don't think Lightmouse will let that 'tweak' happen. —MJCdetroit(yak)03:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crap. Are you sure MJCdetroit? Doesn’t “Follow current literature” already pretty much call for just this policy? It makes fine sense to me and I like Omegatron’s words “I’d say almost every unit…” IMO, it is a good policy to provide conversions to the SI, but doing so should be within the confines of “Follow current literature”, which makes a drop-dead simple case that you still don’t convert or disambiguate where current literature never bothers to, such as for “cc” in certain articles on engines or µgal in gravimetry. Making measures clear is good. Going overboard into ridiculous extremes not ever seen in the real world should be regarded as improper advocacy of the SI that doesn’t help the reader in any way. Any editorial practice that would only ever be found on Wikipedia and can be found on no other general-interest encyclopedia should be approached with healthy skepticism; particularly where Wikipedia has the advantage of Wikilinking, for instance, “cc” to the Cubic centimeter article.
Is your opposition to this due—at least in part—to your questioning of hidden motives? Let me ask this: If the wording doesn’t look like a backdoor approach to undermine common sense or “Follow current literature”, then does the idea seem to be a sound one on the surface? Greg L (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do see hidden motives. There seems to be an SI-task force on wiki that would love to see the whole thing SI-only (even though other encyclopedias are not) and as I said here, the science topics were their way of inching toward their goal and undermining common sense. For the most part, I believe, if there is a measurement...then convert it. I've found miles alone and added km and km alone and added miles; the SI-superheros don't do that. —MJCdetroit(yak)04:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good policy to provide conversions; be they in articles on scientific topics or not, be they to SI/metric or imperial/US, be they what you find in "the literature" or not. I'd love to see Wikipedia metric only, the day all our sources and all our readers are. Linking is not bad per se but we do have a problem with overlinking common units. Omegatron's third point, spell the link out in full, is spot on. JIMptalk·cont04:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Choice of units: can we agree on some basic principles?
It seems that the page has settled down a little. A couple of days ago, Greg L invited me (and Jimp) to edit the fifth draft of his ‘Follow current literature’. Since then I’ve been thinking how best to do that. It occurs to me that before we start editing the text it would help if we could agree on some basic principles that we can all adhere to. Below is a list of 4 “baseline principles”, plus a 5th “guiding principle” for dealing with conflicts between the other 4. Principles 1-4 are presented in alphabetical order, with no precedence implied.
MOSNUM should prefer broadly accepted units; deprecate niche units (for volume use m3 or cu in, not CID; for power use MW, not MWt)
MOSNUM should prefer familiar units; deprecate unfamiliar units ( for mass, use 1 million kg, not 1 Gg )
MOSNUM should prefer modern units; deprecate outdated ones (for pressure use Pa or psi, not inHg or kg/cm2; for force, use N or lbf, not dyn or lb)
MOSNUM should prefer unambiguous units; deprecate ambiguous ones (for mass, use 907 kg, not 1 ton)
where two of principles 1-4 conflict, MOSNUM should require editors to seek a compromise that satisfies the spirit of both
The issue of MB vs MiB is bound to come up at some point, so I may as well raise it now (without attempting to solve it though). In this context, I see a conflict between principles 2 and 4. Is this conflict the root cause of the ongoing dispute? How we address that to keep everyone happy I’m not sure, except to note that that is the purpose of principle 5.
Before taking this any further, I would like to gauge how much agreement there is among us about the 5 principles. To this end, please sign below as appropriate. Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
principle 5 would be follow the example in the literature. MB is not ambiguous when it is disambiguated with the number of bytes and that is a familiar method seen in the article sources. MB disambiguated with MiB uses unfamiliar units and does not follow the example in the article sources. On balance not using MiB is better for the readers because Wikipedia always caters for a general audience. There is a separate Wiki for text book style articles so IEC is not to be used in this Wiki for most of the articles. Judging by modern text books it is clear most do not use IEC either.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list is complete but can be improved by (please suggest minor improvements)
<your signature here>
There is a principle missing from the list (please specify)
Prefer consistent units within an article to facilitate comparison amongst subtopics. If an article covers several narrow fields which use different units for the same quantity, choose one (usually SI) and express all quantities in it (perhaps with conversions to the narrow-field units). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with one or more of the principles included in the list (please specify)
Isn't one of the points of having a 'Follow current literature' is that there are discipline specific ways of expressing units of measurement that may differ from the way SI suggests or how it is done outside that discipline? For example, in Meteorology pressure is very often measured in mbar and inHg and not hPa and psi and in locomotives pressure is expressed in kg/cm² and not Pa and there are probably plenty of other/better examples we could come up with. It would seem silly to try to pretend that barometric pressure is measured in psi because of instructional creep. —MJCdetroit(yak)20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<your signature here>
Disagree with this approach I see this as an agenda-based list that attempts to regulate specific issues and ignores more fundamental principles that we should not turn our backs on. Blood pressure, for instance, is still most often measured in mmHg. Go look at how other encyclopedias handle blood pressure. Your recent effort to ignore how Kbps and Mbps are typically used for internet speeds in preference of the more scientifically pure kbit/s shows that you simply do not agree with the entire thrust of what “Follow current literature” does, which is to align Wikipedia with current literature and with how other encyclopedias communicate (which is to follow current literature). Your list also beats around the bush of the IEC prefixes; get to the point. We have just got to get beyond this view that the SI is so good that we ought to promote it here on Wikipedia by using it even when specific disciplines don’t. Greg L (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
space for more detailed comments here
...
When deciding whether an SI unit is familiar, any combination of a familar SI unit and a familiar SI prefix should be considered a familiar unit. Thus, gigagram is familar but picogram is not. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just not getting why there is a problem. “Follow current literature” begins with how SI is preferred. The only exception to this fundamental preference is not when a discipline ‘sometimes’ uses non-SI units; the only exception is when a discipline consistently uses other units. How often is that? Not too often. This whole argument over the SI prefixes expanded into a broader policy (“Follow current literature”) that uses some examples that some editors here disagree with. But I don’t know why. Wikipedia’s articles are already extremely consistent with what “Follow current literature” says: our motorcycle articles already use cc and don’t convert to milliliters. The article on crude oil production already uses barrels. Wikipedia’s articles on gravimetry already use the gal, mgal, and µgal. So much arguing over something that would produce so little change. Greg L (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting the feeling that the examples are causing grief, so I've removed all of them. Do you disagree with any of the principles? Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re I’m just not getting why there is a problem I can answer only for myself, not for others. This is my way of trying to identify common ground. Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to seem evasive though. It's just that my own opinion is not what should determine progress here - what matters is consensus (For what it's worth, my view is that 'Follow current literature' embodies principles 2 and 3, but not 1, 4 or 5.) Thunderbird2 (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greg's example of blood pressure is a powerful one. I expect mmHg to be with us for blood pressure measurement long after the QWERTY keyboard is gone—doctors just won't change something this deeply ingrained in their culture. In checking into it, however, I came across something useful as regards disambiguation techniques. I'd like to draw attention to the AMA Manual of Style, Tenth edition (2006). The Tenth edition's FAQ advises a change in this regard, calling for conversion factors to be stated in the article once, either at first use in text, in a "Methods" section, or (for tables or figures) in a legend or footnote. See the "SI Units" para at the link.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Metric Conversion Act was signed into law by President Ford in December 1975. President Jimmy Carter was a proponent of the metric system and tried to get the United States on the SI bandwagon in the late 1970s. However, the 14mm lug nuts would not fit the 1/2 inch bolts so the wheels fell off that bandwagon. It is going to take a long time for the metric system to become predominate in the US. When there is a clear benefit or low adoption cost, things change fast. If there is no perceived benefit, the change may never happen. We will be playing football on 100 yard fields in the year 2108. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From Greg L: Here’s where I stand:
MOSNUM should prefer broadly accepted units; deprecate niche units (for volume use m3 or cu in, not CID; for power use MW, not MWt)
MOSNUM should prefer familiar units; deprecate unfamiliar units ( for mass, use 1 million kg, not 1 Gg )
MOSNUM should prefer modern units; deprecate outdated ones (for pressure use Pa or psi, not inHg or kg/cm2; for force, use N or lbf, not dyn or lb)
MOSNUM should prefer unambiguous units; deprecate ambiguous ones (for mass, use 907 kg, not 1 ton)
where two of principles 1-4 conflict, MOSNUM should require editors to seek a compromise that satisfies the spirit of both
#1, it’s a good idea to prefer broadly accepted units. As for deprecating non-broadly accepted units, it depends on whether or not an affected unit is universally used in a particular field; I can’t think of an example at the moment that might be affected. I’m not so sure about “MWt” (megawatt thermal). I’m not expert on this issue and don’t care to be in order to make any progress here. However, I believe that in certain disciplines, such as a coal-fired generating plant, the distinction is sometimes made between the thermal output and the electrical output. I would say that in this particular example, if current literature on that subject routinely uses that unit, then Wikipedia should too in order to properly make its readers conversant in the field and to prepare them for their further studies on that subject. Do you have a couple specific articles and units in mind that would be affected?
#2, it’s a good idea to prefer familiar units. Your one example looks sensible. I wonder what you’re driving at. Can you cite one example on Wikipedia that this would change?
#3, it’s a good idea to prefer modern units. But if a particular discipline routinely uses Torr in the measure of ultra-high vacuum, or millimeters of mercury for measuring blood pressure, or when discussions on carbon dioxide discharges and global warming routinely use “megatons” rather than teragrams, then we do no reader a service by using different units here if our readers won’t encounter them in the real world.
#4, as a general policy, it’s a good idea to prefer unambiguous units. Almost always, this is the case. But you and others for months have repeatedly cited the “ambiguity” of units like “megabyte” in your arguments for using the IEC prefixes (like “mebibyte”). Thus, this single line item has a hidden agenda; let’s not play shy and pretend it doesn’t, shall we? There are rare exceptions where certain disciplines just manage to get along with the shortcomings of ambiguity and Wikipedia must mirror those uses so we don’t confuse readers. Let’s look at another “ambiguity”: Environmental pollution in ground water is routinely reported in PPM and PPT even though the NIST doesn’t recognize the use of either and the BIPM doesn’t recognize the latter. Why? “Trillion” doesn’t mean 1,000,000,000 in all countries. Yet in English-language science and technical fields, very, very many dimensionless quantities are universally measured using parts-per notation. Just because some organization comes along with an unambiguous unit like the uno that neatly addresses this problem, doesn’t mean the Wikipedia should have started actively trying to promote its adoption by routinely using it here. Fortunately, the uno flew under the radar screens of all Wikipedia editors since none of the extremist elements managed to rewrite hundreds of Wikipedia articles with “µU” instead of “PPM”. The same goes for “kibibits” v.s. “kilobits”. They haven’t found real-world usage, are unfamiliar to readers, and don’t help readers if they are only ever going to find them in use here. To properly prepare readers so they are well-read on such subjects, we must mirror these practices and deal with the ambiguities inherent in their meaning the way the rest of the world manages. Wikipedia is not in the business of trying to promote change in the way the world communicates; it uses modern units of measure wherever practical but also follows current communication practices where disciplines consistently use other units of measure.
#5 (where two of principles 1-4 conflict, MOSNUM should require editors to seek a compromise that satisfies the spirit of both), I don’t see this one as making any sense to me so long as Wikipedia simply follows the various writing practices observed by professional encyclopedias.
Certain editors obviously feel that Wikipedia should undercut readers’ understanding of certain subjects (if that’s what it takes) in order to “lead the way” by promoting the adoption of the SI. These editors are well intentioned. In my opinion, the end result is to lead Wikipedia far away from the fundamentals of proper technical writing and makes Wikipedia look foolish. Greg L (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IEC binary prefix enthusiasts seem to be focused on numerical ambiguity. They overlook confusion these strange terms introduce. Merriam-Webster's first definition for ambiguous is "doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness".[8] Using an obscure term that the reader will not find anywhere else introduces other ambiguities into the Wikipedia article. There is more to writing an informative article than eliminating numerical ambiguity with obscure units or converting every non SI unit to an approved SI one. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The anti-IEC crowd seem to be focused on unfamiliarity. They continue to overlook the point that the IEC notation can be explained with a single click and once a given user makes that click, the notation is then unambiguous for that user. Whereas if MB means 1,000,000 bytes in some places and 220 bytes in others, and is doomed to do so for all eternity, then a reader who is not sure which "MB" is in use will have to check the disambiguation for every usage. Jeh (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not anti-IEC at all. What it is is not promoting a failed IEC proposal. What is overlooked is that disambiguation using numbers of bytes removes any perceived ambiguity and does so in a neutral way. That is better than using IEC. Jeh, do not keep on repeating the same already refuted points. DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not up to us to decide that something has failed, nor to decline to use a standard that has been accepted by many standards bodies besides IEC. As for numbers of bytes, the whole reason we have unit prefixes of any sort is that using whole numbers of anything (whether meters, grams, or bytes) is visually ugly, and usually unnecessary. If you insist on disambiguating to whole numbers, then you must be exact in all cases - all displayed digits must be significant. But it is not particularly useful or necessary to tell the reader that a hard drive contains "320 GB (320,071,700,480 bytes)". (Or do we instead use the operating system's displayed figure-with-prefix of "298.09 GB"? These are all real-world numbers, btw.) The fact that the so-called "disambiguation" is neither a multiple of 109 or of 220, and that another "320 GB" drive may have a rather different number, merely adds to the confusion: People will look at such a thing and conclude that "GB" there must mean "about 1,000,000,000, but a little more when it comes to hard drives." Consistently using GiB for 220 bytes and GB for 109 bytes is more precise, less visually intrusive, and after a single click to explain it reduces confusion, and that is why IEC is better than "disambiguating" with whole numbers. Your continued repetitions of your self-styled "refutations" do not address these points. Lastly, David, do not presume to tell me what to post. Jeh (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not us that decides if something has failed because the evidence for the failure of IEC comes from the sources. Using IEC presents a false point of view to the reader because it is not used most of the time. The fact is adding IEC is biased and using neutral disambiguation is not biased. It is not up to you to decide IEC should be forced into articles. That addresses every single thing you mention.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Let's try this then:
MOSNUM should prefer broadly accepted units
MOSNUM should prefer consistent use of units within an article;
MOSNUM should prefer familiar units; deprecate unfamiliar units
MOSNUM should prefer modern units
MOSNUM should prefer unambiguous units; deprecate ambiguous ones
where two of principles 1-5 conflict, MOSNUM should require editors to seek a compromise that satisfies the spirit of both
1) Aren't 1 and 3 redundant? 2) I like the last point. Probably it should say "where two or more..." But aside from that quibble, I feel strongly that if the editors on a given article achieve consensus on the use of a particular notation, that notation should be used. Subject matter experts know more about what notation to use than anyone who tries to write a general policy. 3) Perhaps point 3 should be changed to "deprecate or explain, either with a footnote or with a Wikilink to an appropriate article (vastly preferred), unfamiliar units." Jeh (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thunderbird2: No. I’m not willing to be unnecessarily dragged down a path of mental and verbal gymnastics for something that is so simple a sixth grader could settle it. We’re still beating around the bush with an agenda-based list that includes seemingly innocuous statements like “deprecating ambiguous units” and similar fare. On the surface, it seems all common sense, like ‘Wikipedia should units’ that are “good,” and “wholesome,” and “clear,” and “modern,” and whatever other adjectives and superlatives you can manage to throw into it all (perhaps the units should donate regularly to the United Way). But like most any other agreement or treaty, the devil is in the details: what do these things mean and in what contexts?
Do you think professional publications and professional encyclopedias have rules for selecting units of measure that are this complex (?); a rule-set so complex that you need a sixth (no doubt soon to be seventh) rule on how to arbitrate conflicts within the rule set? How do you think Encyclopedia Britannica settled on using “barrels” for oil production (?), and “cc” for motorcycle and scooter engines (?), and “megabyte” for computer articles, and “milligal” for gravimetry (?), and “mmHg” for blood pressure? Do you think they had to have editorial meetings and engaged in endless and heated arguments over the meaning of a half-dozen+ rules governing the choice? Such a notion is totally absurd.
I have complete confidence that it’s all pretty simple and abundant common sense for other encyclopedias—you can see the simplicity by simply looking at the end result: if it’s an article very particular to the U.S., such as the distance from downtown L.A. to LAX, then the distance is in miles along with a parenthetical disambiguation to kilometers for the many English-language readers who are most familiar with the SI. Otherwise, the preference is to use SI where possible. But if a discipline consistently uses different units of measure (blood pressure in mmHg), then use those units. Why? So that our readers can learn about a subject and are primed as well as possible to learn even more in their studies elsewhere. And so readers can readily converse with others who are knowledgeable in that discipline. Done.
This is just drop-dead simple. It is only complex because you insist on hijacking Wikipedia in a vain effort to promote the adoption of the IEC binary prefixes and the SI in those disciplines that failed to do so. It’s been nearly a decade since the IEC proposed their prefixes and nearly two years since Sarenne ran off and changed hundreds of Wikipedia articles to use them. And still the rest of the world (manufacturers, magazines, computer users, other encyclopedias) isn’t using them to this day. And they won’t another ten years from now. You can try to write “a healthy blood pressure is 160 hPa over 90 hPa” but ten years from now, the medical community will still be using millimeters of mercury. I could handle some editors’ stubbornness if the foundation of their position was somehow remotely grounded in the true reality of the situation.
Please affirm one of the two below declarations so I know whether or not spending all this time responding to your posts is an utter and complete waste of time:
1) I [your name here] still want Wikiipedia to use the IEC prefixes in its general-interest computer-related articles and/or also want to have project-wide, consistent use of the SI system of measurement, even where certain disciplines consistently don’t use the SI. Further, the above six-point list of “common ground” is really a list of attributes I thought were all indisputably virtuous goodliness intended to pave the way for getting my way. Or… 2) I don’t have the objectives mentioned in #1 above, and simply ended up with a half-dozen attributes to consider in choosing units of measure in an attempt to find common ground and because six rules made gobs of sense to me.
Do tell; which is it? I am truly not interested in wasting my time in the name of “finding common ground” if we’re really beating around the bush and there is no common ground on the central point of the dispute. And please, spare me your protestations over how I am demonstrating a lack of “assuming good faith.” I’ve read your arguments on this and other pages for months now and your desires have been consistent and clear from day-one. “Assuming good faith” doesn’t mean I have to “suspend common sense.” Greg L (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course the "follow current literature" is much better. The only people who disagree are those who want to promote their biased view about IEC. Being biased towards a system is why that position is weak and does not have consensus.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, you are not in a position to talk about bias, good faith, and agenda-based lists. It looks to me as though you are the one who created this whole "follow current literature" proposal when you couldn't get consensus to ban IEC prefixes specfically. You couldn't get that, so you wrote and argued for a policy that would ban them implicitly... and then to make sure no one missed your point, you put in a strong deprecation of IEC prefixes as an example! Then you put it into the main project page before consensus had been achieved, thereby attracting discussion participants who weren't necessarily familiar with the long background of discussion on binary prefixes; you vote-stacked by canvassing only people who had expressed opinions against IEC prefixes in the past, and you blithely dismissed all arguments against your proposal as "invalid" or "rebutted." No, this is not particularly AGF either, but as you said, AGF doesn't mean I have to refuse to connect these very obvious dots. It is your proposal that was obviously, explicitly biased against IEC prefixes; Thunderbird2's doesn't mention them, so how can it be biased for them? No, I am not interested in wasting my time answering another of your leading-question polls; you will merely dispute any answers you don't like and your friend Fnagaton will declare them "wrong" over and over again. How did EB decide what units to use? Why, I imagine they have some general rules, but that they trusted their editors in each discipline when the rules weren't sufficient. We should do the same. And please, the spectre of the Evil User Sarenne is pretty tired, don't you think? Jeh (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First things first, Jeh: As to your charge that I canvassed votes and this improperly influenced the outcome, that’s pure garbage and I addressed the crap here. I suggest you read that link because it clearly explains how I was trying to correct the damage from a classic Wikipedia B.S. stunt the “oppose” crowd resorted to: moving the discussion venue off of Talk:MOSNUM to remote backwaters where it’s effectively impossible to stumble across by most editors. Then the old votes were invalidated and brand new votes conducted on these backwater venues where the hot-headed, highly animated “oppose” crowd always seemed to be magically adept at working in a highly coordinated fashion. Even still, every time votes on “Follow current literature” came up on these backwaters, there was still a clear majority of your typical ‘ho hum’ editor in favor of adopting it. Then the venue gets moved again and all those original support votes no longer meant squat. All those “support” editors are now disenfranchised. You complain about canvassing, and yet only three oppose votes came in on the last vote and no new “oppose” votes were posted in over two days. So really, the only thing you should be complaining about is how the “oppose” crowd apparently tried to make the ‘vote issue’ go away by boycotting it and that tactic backfired didn’t it? That’s why the vote was so lopsided and that’s just too bad.
Further, the support votes were, without exception, accompanied by calm, reasoned statements along the lines of “makes sense to me & solves a long-standing problem”. Whereas the “oppose” votes were typically truly irrational nonsense such as “this is just a underhanded attempt to deprecate the use of the SI on Wikipedia.” Like other editors have said here, a general consensus had clearly formed and, in part, this was due to the fact that the arguments of the “oppose” element were fallacious. Reasoned arguments simply carry greater weight than do wholesale exagerations.
Let’s simply call a spade a spade. The “support” crowd doesn’t have a burden with our true objective; we simply want to follow how other encyclopedia’s choose units of measure because the reason for doing so addresses an important objective of technical writing. The “oppose” crowd has the uphill battle of having to find an argument that circumvents the inconvenient truth of the matter: that you simply think that when it comes to choosing units of measure, you guys somehow know better than the professional, paid editors at all the general-interest computer magazines and print encyclopedias throughout the world. You want Wikipedia off all on its own using “hectopascals” for blood pressure and “kibibits” for computer chips even though this isn’t how the real world talks and writes. This truth of your position is something that only Headbomb was willing to admit to (see Example of Follow current literature above). The majority here have neither the naive arrogance, nor the propensity to resort to fallacious arguments in a vain attempt to simply get our way. We prefer to believe that the paid professional editors with advance journalism degrees at Encyclopedia Britannica can actually teach us novice hobbyists a thing or two.
As to “not answering my leading questions”, it seems a fairly straightforward question: is your six-point list really a way to see if we have some common ground (?), or are you wasting everyone’s time here because the six points are nothing more than beating around the bush, and there is no common ground on the central point of the dispute? You don’t like it when someone asks this question. I guess, that’s just too bad.
As to your “And please, the spectre of the Evil User Sarenne is pretty tired, don't you think?” I didn’t say Sarenne was evil. I said Sarenne went around and changed a hundred or so Wikipedia articles from the conventional binary prefixes to the IEC prefixes until he was banned for life for all the havoc that created. Is that another inconvenient truth?
Finally, “Fifth draft” has been provided above for the “oppose” crowd to show what they mean to accomplish here. Either edit it in a realistic fashion that you expect everyone on both sides will be able to sign on to, or edit it so it reflects precisely what you wish you could accomplish. Either way, I’d be happy as a clam. All this “let’s find common ground” business of Thunderbird2’s, with its gamed questions that have had the examples stripped completely the hell out of them so they are ambiguous beyond all reason, is a colossal waste of time. Get to the point! Show what you want in “Fifth draft”. I did it with “First draft”, “Suggested tweak”, “Third, hybrid proposal”, and “Fourth draft” (which had over a dozen editors working hard on it in good faith to craft); it’s your turn now. Completely revise it for all I care. Just craft a proposal of some sort; that’s not too much to ask. Greg L (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Various replies, more or less in the order of your posts:
To Jeh: I see "broadly accepted" and "familiar" as distinct principles. The first is aimed at the writer and favours (for example) the use of MW over MWt because MW is broadly accepted across a range of disciplines. The second is more for the reader, to whom kg is likely to be more familiar than Gg. They can probably be phrased better though.
To Greg L: There is no point in crafting a text that pleases only me, so I am working towards something that I hope both sides will be able to sign on to, except that I would phrase that differently. (For as long as you see this as taking sides it will be hard to build consensus.) Whether you like it or not, the first step towards that is to identify the common ground. The detail can (and must) come later. Please have patience, try to avoid unwarranted accusations and read assume good faith.
To Francis Schonken: I don't see how ‘Follow current literature’ addresses principles 1, 5 or 6. Do you have an objection to these principles?
To DavidPaulHamilton: Do you object to any of the principles?
To all: I would like to include some illustrative examples, but the ones I chose turned out to be controversial. Suggestions are welcome.
…which you used in a table. They didn’t seem bad to me and you certainly didn’t deserve the smack down you received.
