Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 12

message: *option 1: 90°
:or
*option 2: 90 °
When talking about angles, not temp., which is correct in SI world? I can't find a set rule. I know what I am used to seeing though. If it is option 1, then it is different then[sic] other units, where a space is put between number and unit designation (13 MHz). Hobie 00:29, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
:The signs for degrees, minutes and seconds are exceptions, taking no space: 0°0′0″.  The international standard for this is in ISO-31, I think, but I don't have a copy here.  As for degrees Celsius, style guides differ as to whether there is a space or not.  The Canadian standard is 0°C, but NIST in the States uses 0 °C.  I forget what ISO-31 has to say on the subject.--Indefatigable 14:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been said, the default is to use a space between value and unit symbol with the exceptions of angular degrees, angular minutes and angular seconds. This is also mentioned in the FAQ for the the[sic] newsgroup misc.metric-system http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/metric-system-faq.html There is no exception for temperature. The symbol is "°C" and that gets a space. You will see it used, as in "630 °C" on the official SI website. http://www1.bipm.org/en/si/history-si/temp_scales/its-90.html It is not an official SI matter, it may be in ISO 31 as suggested. Bobblewik  (talk) 17:49, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Degrees? space[,] no space

message: I recently found out that the two links
 January 15, 2001
are treated as a single date entity for formatting. This is not obvious. If the date is treated as one entity, surely it should look like one link, for example:
 January 15, 2001
Bobblewik  (talk) 16:54, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date formats 

message: I suggest that we create pages named thousand million and million million, and on those pages explain that "billion" or "trillion" are ambiguous, and in the style guide recomend that people use thousand million and million million. —AlanBarrett 23:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah.  Let's just accept that a billion is 1,000,000,000 these days.  I'm as keen to avoid Americanisms as anyone (probably more than anyone!) but the battle is really lost on this one.  A billion is now the same everywhere in the English-speaking world.  The OED agrees, The Guardian agrees...  I think we should recommend it in our style guide, though backing it up with scientific notation.  Chameleon 23:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, we should just standardize on billion. It seems that it is the major and increasing usage, and is supported by authoritative sources. Should this extend to trillion, and so on, in general? - Centrx 06:50, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can accept the use of billion as 10^12, but in that case it should always be linked on first occurance[sic] in an article to thousand million or 1 E9, like so: billion. — David Remahl 17:51, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed policy for "thousand million" and "million million"

message: I think that it is more logical for an article named something like "60" to refer to the number sixty. It can be distinguished from the date by titling the date articles "AD 60" or "60 BC". If a user searches for "60", doesn't it make sense that they want the number 60, not AD 60?
:Perhaps, but if a user searches for 1997, it almost certainly means that he/she is looking for the article about the year 1997. Years are linked to in almost every article, so changing this would take a lot of work, both on the technical side and on mindset. — David Remahl 15:57, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the rationale for the many number articles in general. Maurreen 17:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people find numbers interesting, and they have arguably encyclopaedic properties. — David Remahl 17:40, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  1997 is a prime number! So it is possible that the user is looking for information about this number! I think that 1997 is a number and in the Gregorian calendar it is associated to a year. But it is a number in first place. Fupis 20:43, 05 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years vs. [n]umbers 

message: You're invited to a poll at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks over whether that should remain the article's title or it should be changed to "Attacks of September 11, 2001".
I favor the latter, because using two commas to set the year off is widely supported by US English reference books, and Wikipedia style says: "If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to an alternative that is often regarded as incorrect." Maurreen 07:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: quote and cite? lysdexia 21:55, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you followed the link, you'd see my references. But that vote is well past anyway. Maurreen 07:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sept. 11 attacks