Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 91

message: Just a thought - should there be a comment as to the fact that the fluid ounce as a unit has two (and a half) definitions, and should be specified in a manner similar to gallon? Or would that be a case of over-advising when they differ by only about 5%? --Neo 16:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When editing, one should always try to be specific; U.S. fluid ounce or imperial fluid ounce, not just fluid ounce.  However, should we have a specific comment here in the MOS/MOSNUM? No.  The examples regarding the gallons, tons, and miles are general examples.  Those examples should imply that when a unit has the same name in the imperial system as the U.S. customary system but measure differently then an editor should be specific.  —-- MJCdetroit (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there exist certain contexts in which this 5% difference is unimportant enough that it would not be appropriate to make the distinction.  Need this be specifically mentioned, however, I'd tend to think not. Jɪmp 16:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Especially since the imperial ounce is basically irrelevant for prose in Wikipedia (except in historic contexts). Christoph Päper (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fluid ounce 

message: Hmm... I detect a terms of art conflict here.  Definitely in the gun world, "9mm" is a term of art; it is a name for a caliber of bullet and the weapon that fires it, that is derived from a measurement. It isn't really "nine milimeters" (= "9 mm"), nor is it ever spelled out as "nine-milimeter" (unless someone foolishly constructs a sentence that requires this conversion by putting it at the beginning).  In fact spacing 9mm would be a very bad idea, because if you write "9 mm pistol" you are talking about the world's smallest firearm (remember, we do not hyphenate the compound-adjective measurements when the unit is abbreviated: 9-mm pistol), not a caliber. And in looking around on this (Google, gun sites, etc.), the spaced spelling is pretty close to astronomically dwarfed by the non-spaced version.  I think that "100m dash" is a similar case; it isn't a measurement per se in that context, but the name of an event in athletics competitions that happens to be derived from a measurement.  MOSNUM is already making a term-of-art exception or two, so adding a couple more won't kill anyone; it just needs to be unambiguous so it cannot be misinterpreted to permit non-spacing otherwise. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meta-discussion: Terms of art

message: I call for closure on this one.  The proposal as I understand it is that we clarify the guideline to:
#Make it clear that number-unit phrases are not hyphenated when the unit is abbreviated or when the number is given in numerals instead of spelled out, even if used adjectivally (as in 4.5 inch (114 mm) Mark 8 naval gun - "4.5" is numeric even though "inch" is spelled out, and "114 mm" is both numeric and abbreviated)
#State that for usages derived from measurements that have become names, and where those names are not usually spaced, do not use a space (as in "100m dash")
#At least for the next generation or so, state that we continue providing US unit conversions after metric ones, but continue to prefer metric as the leading unit except for cases where US units are customary/standard, in which case provide both units again, but lead with the US[*] ones. (Note: This third issue was also raised in the very first topic shown on this page as of this writing, i.e. before upcoming archival. The topic name is "Proposal for a minor change in the requirement for unit conversions". I had called for an RfC on it, but am instead explicitly re-opening it here, as this discussion also re-raised the issue, indicating that its closure at the original topic was incomplete.)
#Completely deprecate UK imperial units, since they have been supplanted by metric, with the only exceptions being the very rare cases in which they remain customary or standard for the usage in question (e.g. measuring the height of horses in Hand (length) units).
* By "US", I mean "usually US, and to a diminishing extent, Canadian and American-influenced Caribbean, customary units, and rarely UK imperial units that often but do not always perfectly coincide with US customary ones".  An example is snooker tables, which are mostly a .uk/.au/.nz/.za/.ie item but which remain specified in – largely non-North-American – snooker governing body standards publications as having playing surfaces that are "6 feet by 12 feet", long after the metric system has supplanted such units more generally, and indeed the balls and other equipment are specified in millimetres and grams.  I.e., we need to account for weird exceptions like this.
Specific language may need to be worked out, but at least agreeing on these 4 points explicitly will help us get there.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 00:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolution

message: This article states:
*"Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. Piped links to pages that are more focused on a topic are possible (1997), but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function."
All dates and years in this article shouldn't be linked, should they? Kameejl (Talk) 16:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you are asking. Tony (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dates and years are linked in this MOS (e.g. 1998 instead of 1998 and 8 November instead of 8 November). The MOS prescribes that dates/years should only link to date/year article "if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic". Most years/dates in this topic are (formating) examples and are not likely to deepen readers' understanding of this MOS, hence, they should not link to date/year articles. Kameejl (Talk) 09:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, there are just a couple in the "Dates if birth and death" subsection. Feel like delinking them? If there's a numbered date (8 in 8 November), that's autoformatted. I wouldn't use the autoformatting dysfunction, but I think some folk would object to changing that on the page. Tony (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Please make the MOS conform to the MOS. Lightmouse 20:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. Partial dates shouldn't be linked. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: They should generally not be linked, but as the guidelines suggest, there might be cases where linking can deepen a reader's understanding. Linking December 2 and 1981 in Britney's article is correct, so that the date can be formatted to suit readers' preferences, not that following either link will deepen understanding. Tony staunchly opposes utilizing this autoformatting, but his opinion is not consensus, as much as we appreciate many of his other contributions. I recommend following the guideline. This guideline could have its own examples corrected where the year alone is linked, as in Genghis Khan, where 1162 should not be linked. Chris the speller (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a script that unlinks all date fragments (solitary years, solitary months etc). It leaves full dates linked in accordance with guidance (although I share Tony's dislike of linking them too). It is easy to use. Feel free to use it directly or take pieces of code from it. Ask at my talk page if you want to know more. Lightmouse (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistent

message: Someone who is both expedient and neutral about arching, please archive this page. It is getting so long that it is again causing browser crashes (both Safari/Mac with under 1GB RAM, and Firefox/WinXP with 1GB ram). Please also archive this note along with the rest of the archving, or someone may think the page still needs to be archived. I would do it myself, but, eh, my browsers keep crashing! D'oh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Jɪmp 07:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please archive