Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 83

message: I'm transferring a discussion between Coren and me from his/her talk page.
BEFORE:
The number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context (“The response rates were 41.0 and 47.4 percent, respectively”, not “The response rates were 41 and 47.4 percent, respectively”).
AFTER: 
Outside of scientific contexts where numerical error may be significant, the number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context (“The response rates were 41.0 and 47.4 percent, respectively”, not “The response rates were 41 and 47.4 percent, respectively”).
I don't get it. Why is scientific context at issue here? Tony 04:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because significant digits and precision count.  41 is different from 41.0— the former means "some value in [40.5 41.5[" while the latter means "some value in [40.95 41.05[.  In a scientific text, changing the number of significant digits changes the meaning.  — Coren (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But in a list of values, we expect that they'll be of equal decimal-place precision, yes? If the list is 36.8, 51.1 and 53 and 54.5, not only does it look odd, it raises the question as to whether the writer intended 53.0 or, as you put it, somewhere in the range 52.5 ≤ x < 53.5 (in most cases, writers do mean 53.0, and even scientists have been known to be sloppy about this. I don't understand why your text exempts scientific contexts where numerical error "counts" (and where does the boundary between counting/not counting lie?). The wording needs tweaking, in any case. Tony 01:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that the wording should note that scientific contexts sometimes have requirements for explicit precision that will prevent consistency, rather than implying it is the norm. SamBC(talk) 01:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous (and changed) wording concerns only the same list or context. I'm unsure why you'd want to change the level of precision for only one item. Can we have an example of where this might be the case; otherwise, I think the change should be reverted. Tony 04:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Items that happen to fall into the same list are not inherently measured to the same precision.  If I measure something with a yardstick marked in inches with no finer markings, and you measure some other things with a more precise ruler, our measurements have different precision.  If our measurements were listed together, in some contexts it would be undesirable to bludgeon them into the same precision.  Scientists tend to be more careful about significant digits than other people are.  So yes, there are edge cases where this is a legitimate issue.  In general, within the context of Wikipedia, I am not sure how often this would come up. — Aluvus t/c 05:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *It may be worth specifying this one category of potential exceptions to help prevent wikilawyering. It may not. I've just noticed that "generally" doesn't seem to hold much weight with the wikilawyers. SamBC(talk) 08:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have trouble getting my brain around this "one category", and why one item in a list would warrant different treatment. Generally is possibly a useful way of allowing editors a little latitude (i.e., do it unless you present a good reason not to). Perhaps someon can come up with an example of this elusive 41 and 47.4. Tony 10:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit concerning the point about consistent decimal places