Talk:Billion (disambiguation)

message: The short scale is used by English speakers in the U.S., the UK and Australia (though maybe not Wales), and by Arabic speakers.  It is far from an exclusive province of English speakers, and by singling out English at this dab page, the implication is that the short scale is exclusive to English.  It is not, and while Wikipedia has an English speaking audience, it is inappropriate to adopt exclusively Anglo-centric definitions of terms such as this.  Not to mention that by listing only one of the major users of the short scale, the reference is affirmatively misleading.  It was fine before when we did not try to single out any particular adherent to these two scales, but if we're going to do it at all, the note must include the other major user.  I intend to change it to that more accurate and complete form (English plus Arabic) absent a compelling argument why it should not be.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference needs to come out in any case per Wikipedia:Dab#References.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Having suggested that the descriptor include Arabic in addition to English, I've thought about it some more and can't see any sensible reason not also to include other major languages that also use the short scale, e.g., Russian, Hebrew, Brazilian Portuguese.  The problem though is that begins to get cumbersome; and too, if we're going to throw in a list of speakers who use the short scale, it leaves hanging the question of who uses the long scale.  That omission becomes kind of hard to defend.  I'm leaning back to where the description was originally, i.e. with no particular descriptor attached.  It's really a pretty interesting breakdown throughout the world - who uses which scale, and when they did - and that can't really be done justice in a snippet of a sentence.  Plus too the Long and short scales article is linked.  I'll reiterate - there is no reason to single out English for special mention in connection with one meaning of the word "billion".  Most of the readers here speak English, to be sure, but it's a non sequitur to suggest that they are therefore only interested in information about English language usage.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glad we have a conversation going on this. Wikipedia uses the short scale  and English dictionaries too. The common definition for billion *is* the short scale. We have to state the common definition here. There are pages here that say n billion and if you click the link you would have found out that n billion has two meanings which is wrong! If billion is in an article it *only* means the short scale. We should note this long-scale variation in other languages, but this is the English wikipedia. Bhny (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

text:  A problem with this page is that the name is "Billion" and not "Billion (disambiguation)". Many links and searches will be looking here for a referenced definition. I see above that there was an attempt to redirect to the short scale number which would have been better. Bhny (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't particularly mind stating the common definition, and I don't mind emphasizing it if it is true.  I do object to a dab definition that implies that the term is somehow more the province of English speakers than of the many others who also employ the short scale, which the dab does when it describes the short scale definition as the scale used in "British and American English".  I am not sure how true it is, that the short scale is "the" common definition for billion given that most of continental Europe and south America do not use it, but to the extent that it is, the qualifier you've added both underemphasizes that point as well as overemphasizes the importance of English speakers in its use.  To do this right, you need a real mouthful of a sentence, plus you'd need one for long scale as well because you can't equate long scale users with those who don't use short scale, see for example, much of Asia.  It's a mess, it was better when it was simpler, and so I'm changing it back to its original state.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Short scale" use 

message: In the English Wikipedia the word billion is used in the American meaning (1 000 000 000), or the British (1 000 000 000 000)? I assume in most cases it is (or even it should be because of a wiki-recommendation/rule?) the American way (since it is the majority of users and Wikipedia is an American company). Am I right? And could anyone please write this into the article (Billion)? It would be very useful, i guess. Thanks, --Jiří Janíček (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the short-scale billion is used in all English speaking countries. England switched  in 1974. Also Wikipedia isn't a company (haha) and tries to be international. For example the  spelling used in articles is whatever the article originally starts with, be it American/British/Canadian. Bhny (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, in all Wikipedia articles, billion follows the American usage and not the historic British one. (No, that's not because of the American origin of Wiki's founders or users; it's standard in all forms of English now. No, I do not understand why the move proposal above failed.) — LlywelynII 08:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in English Wikipedia 

message: As the comment above points out, Blue-Haired Lawyer was precisely correct in saying
:The current set-up... serves to give the misleading impression of ambiguity in contemporary English usage when there really isn't any, and create confusion in the eyes of readers as to the meaning of the word billion.
I personally feel that   (for all forms of English) means that we should have the number 1 000 000 000 redirect to billion and have the first section of the article billion address the former (but now completely obsolete) British usage. I'm not sure what the cut-off is for resubmitting a failed move proposal, though.
In the meantime, we must phrase the lead (with or without citations) to clarify Wikipedia and all official English venues' use of this number. Otherwise, we are giving people the impression that pages with USE BRITISH ENGLISH tags or newspaper articles from The Economist or the Beeb are still using the long scale. If there are general policies that conflict with fixing that problem (I myself believe the earlier editor who left the commented text was just misreading our dab page policy), then this is a  situation. — LlywelynII 09:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting & move

message: I have restored a link to the long scale billion which was removed several months ago. This page serves as a disambiguation page and Billion (disambiguation) redirects here. Since this page serves to disambiguate between all articles that the title "Billion" may refer to, it should include a link to 1,000,000,000,000. If editors genuinely feel that "billion" is the primary topic for 1,000,000,000 they should start another move discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That link still appears - look again more carefully. But it is plain antisocial to restore a version that fails to indicate which is the normal meaning of billion and which is an antiquated one. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are treating the short scale billion as the primary definition of the word, and that argument was rejected above. When there is no primary topic all articles should be given as a list. Basically the consensus in the move discussion went against you so you have gamed it by restructuring the article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really think 10^9 is not the primary meaning of "billion" in today's world? Do you read British newspapers? Have you ever seen billion used to mean 10^12 in real life, because I don't think I have, whereas I see it used to mean 10^9 practically every day. There isn't any serious dispute about what the primary meaning is, the argument in the move discussion was about what should redirect to what, and I agree it seems quite reasonable to keep this as a disambiguation page, but a helpful one, i.e. one that makes it clear to readers what billion nearly always means, as well as all the other things it might occasionally mean. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not the point. The move discussion found there was no consensus that the the short scale billion is the primary topic for "billion". If it is the primary topic then start another "move" discussion. Otherwise please leave this page to fulfil the function it was created to do i.e. disambiguate between topics which share a common name. Betty Logan (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to start a move discussion, since I don't want to move anything. I'm happy for this page to distinguish between topics, as you say, but it needs to do this slightly more intelligently than most disambiguation pages do, since people may be confused as to what the normally encountered meaning is (that being the reason for keeping this as a disambiguation page and not simply redirecting). W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't the job of a disambiguation page to explain the etymology of a word.  Even if modern English-written publications predominantly use the short scale there are plenty of historical ones where the situation is reversed. A "billion" is not a number, it is a word and its meaning depends entirely on when, where and for what it is used. Betty Logan (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one said or added anything about etymology, and as I've said already, no-one removed the historical meaning - just noted that it is, basically, historical, which is what people need to know. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

text:  A billion is a number. Disambiguation pages have the common definition followed by "may also refer to". I don't know why we can't do that here. And nobody was talking about an etymology. Also it is actually dangerous to give people the an obsolete value if they are depending on this for a calculation. Bhny (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000,000 are numbers. A "billion"—as confirmed by the move discussion above—is a word that denotes several different things not only in the English language but also on Wikipedia. This is a disambiguation page not an article, and it was fine as it was before all the tampering. As for your assertion it is dangerous to give people an obsolete value, it is equally dangerous if someone is reading an older document that uses the long-scale version and the disambiguation page gives them the impression that the short-scale version is the "correct" version. Which version is correct depends entirely on the context, when and where the term originates. A disambiguation page shouldn't be making any assumptions on behalf of the reader; it should simply make it clear that it can have two interpretations in the numerical sense that are covered on Wikipedia. We have a comprehensive article at Long and short scales to explain the distinction and this article doesn't need to do anything other than simply providing the links. Betty Logan (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Several people have explained, now and in previous threads and edit summaries, why "simply providing the links" is a less helpful solution in this case than providing the links together with a little added commentary about actual usage. You would seem to want to deprive readers of that knowledge or make it harder for them to find it, perhaps because you want to feel some companionship in what appears to be your own ignorance about this subject. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the long scale billion 

message: Is there any credence mentioning 1,000,000,000,000 as a billion, it seems archaic and not used in British English anymore so why is it still listed at the top of the page? Zarcadia (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still a meaning some people would encounter (though to be honest I don't think I've ever encountered it except in the context of people explaining what a billion used to mean). I hope that when this disambiguation page is reformatted as one with a primary topic (see above proposal) it will continue to make clear to readers that this meaning is outmoded (as far as the English language is concerned). W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your reply, it's obviously worth mentioning but personally I don't think it should be given so much importance. The RM looks like it's going in the right direction, there's no way the number should be disambiguated. Zarcadia (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  1,000,000,000,000 as a billion