Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 60

message: In keeping with Ref. [6: ISO 31-0], this Guide takes the position that it is acceptable to use the internationally recognized symbol % (percent) for the number 0.01 with the SI and thus to express the values of quantities of dimension one (see Sec. 7.14) with its aid. When it is used, a space is left between the symbol % and the number by which it is multiplied [6: ISO 31-0]. Further, in keeping with Sec. 7.6, the symbol % should be used, not the name "percent." 
Example:   xB = 0.0025 = 0.25 %   but not:   xB = 0.0025 = .25%   or   xB = 0.25 percent
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.158.96 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 8 October 2006 UTC
:This style guide, as well as the Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed., paragraph 8.18, indicate there is no space between a number and a percent sign. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, an organization that has adopted SI and which has published standards on about SI (IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997) does not place a space between a number and a percent sign in its magazine Spectrum (see, for example, page 51 of the September 2006 issue). Since the ISO has no law-making authority and just creates standards for those who choose to adopt them, I suggest this guide should continue to recommend no space between a number and a percent sign. --Gerry Ashton 19:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about degree signs?  50 °/50° or 50 °C/50°C — Omegatron 16:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NIST's Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) on page 16 says there is no space before ° when used to mean degree of angle, but there is a space before °C. Also, when an angle is expressed in degrees, minutes, and seconds, there are no spaces at all; the example given is 30°22'8". I looked in the Chicago Manual of Style and didn't find such clear-cut advise. --Gerry Ashton 19:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  % 

message: Some editors are claiming that dates should not be wikified for airline schedule information in airport articles (see, for example, here). Before I pursue this further, I would like to see some other opinions. -- Donald Albury 12:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exemptions for airport articles 

message: When I first read a help page on wikitext, 1958-02-17 was the only format mentioned. Now it says a) several others work and b) that this one is not preferred anymore. So what linked format is preferred? Shinobu 15:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is preferable to use either February 17, 1958 or 17 February 1958 depending whether American English or Commonwealth English makes more sense for that particular article. The reason is that whichever format you type is what non-signed-in readers, or those who haven't set up their date preferences, will see. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preferred linked format? 

message: Added a clarification to Direct quotations Section. Text as follows: 
"If the quote includes an obscure use of units (e.g., five million board feet of lumber) annotate it with a footnote which provides metric units rather than revising the actual quote; see the guidelines of Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of footnote generation using the  tags or other accepted Wikipedia footnote methods."
Think it should be noncontroversial, but if it is too brave, let's discuss. Williamborg (Bill) 15:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's controversial, but it's in the wrong place. It was in the section about dates, so I moved it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct quotations 

message: I get a leftover comma when my preferences transform the comma'd style to the non comma'd. I'm referring to the following advice:
If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers’ date preferences to work, displaying the reader’s chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present. For example:
*Day, month, and year
**February 17, 1958 → February 17, 1958 
**17 February 1958 → 17 February 1958
This is all very well, but in practice you often have a necessary comma after the year, which produces things like: The party on 17 February 1958, was memorable. So it appears faultily punctuated. 
It doesn't bother me much when I'm reading articles, but it does when I'm editing them. I would use the uncomma'd method myself (because I find it less fussy), but sometimes it's necessary to conform to the style already in the article. Am I doing something wrong, or is this problem unavoidable? 
qp10qp 03:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it's unavoidable. It's been mentioned on this page a few times, but there doesn't seem to be a solution given the current software. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one non-technical solution, then, might be for the manual of style to recommend the form: 7 February 1958. (Forgive me if this has been done to death already.) qp10qp 15:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has. Sorry! See #Making date links be only about cross-referencing four sections up this page for one. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha. Cheers. Well, at least I was briefer. qp10qp 23:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I get a stray comma after dates