Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 69

message: All encyclopaedias I ever came across have the dates and the places of birth and death right after the name of the subject. It gives a general idea on the person and facilitates reading enormously. To separate the dates from the places (these to go in the main text only) means separating something that belongs together. The general guideline on this should be changed! In my articles I follow the traditional usage of putting datas and places in the introduction, not in the main text, unless there was something else to say about the birth or death, then it may be repeated in the main text. If somebody just looks up the general information on some famous person with a big article it is not easy to find the death place among Life, Trivia, Works and other sections, it might be hidden anywhere. Kraxler 17:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say that all the reference works that I have to hand give only the years of birth and death directly after the person's name; the precise dates and places are left for the article.  This approach means less clutter in the lead.  That dates and places "belong together" is unclear; if they do, why not names of parents and place and date of birth?  Cause of death and time and place of death?  Don't they equally well "belong together"?  --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 16:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The place for this discussion is on the talk page for WP:MOSBIO, not here. But I do not think the guideline should be changed, and if you so not like the guideline, you are not free to just ignore it. "Break the rules" means to consider the reader and break the rules in cases where the rules do not lead to good results, but it does not mean you can just break the rules because it is not the style you would choose. This is not your encyclopedia, it's our encyclopedia. Chris the speller 20:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date and Place of Birth and Death in biographical articles

message: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject."(my italics)
I think what is meant here is "British". Does anyone have any objections if I change this? Soaringgoldeneagle 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, much of the time it's U.S. vs non-U.S. (including Canadian, Australian, South African, Indian, etc.) English.  Still, "British" is certainly better than "English" here, yes. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 16:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "English" in Eras section 

message: I've just reverted the deletion of a perfectly correct piece about not using greengrocer's apostrophes in decades (e.g., not "the 1970's" but "the 1970s").  Can anyone suggest an explanation for thinking that one should use an apostrophe in such cases? --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 23:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reading about this recently. Some U.S. copy-editors use it (as I recall) and I can't remember why, but I think the reasoning is probably the years belonging to the decade beginning 1970. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: According to this website,  the New York Times writes it with an apostrophe, reasoning that it's like the plurals of numbers and letters, as in p's and q's. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But "p's and q's" is used because of the confusion and obscurity of "ps and qs", not because it's a correct way of dealing with the plural (and that's better solved by "Ps and Qs", as the article says).  The NYT – or, at least, William Safire – seems confused on this. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 12:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A pedant replies: Isn't it a "greengrocers' apostrophe"? Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depnds on whether you think it's "apostrophes as used by greengrocers" or "apostrophes used in the way a greengrocer uses them".  I've seen both (and, to be honest, probably use them both in different places). --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 12:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There might be a case for using the apostrophe if one really were saying "the years which belong to 1970", but not when pluralising the years. The New York Times has more of a point; but I'd suggest it would only be necessary if describing an uncertain year or years from the decade, thus: "197x's". Otherwise, it's just redundant. Who, honestly, misunderstands "1970s"? – Kieran T (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greengrocer's apostrophe in decades 

message: The Currency section opens with a note about competing/overlapping proposals and then goes on to read.
Next it talks about which are not country specific.  Then it talks about currency abbreviations.  No recommendation has been made as to what currency to use then we come to the Conversions subsection which reads.
There's a hole here.  We talk of an "original currency" but don't specify what is to be meant by such.  You might assume that it were the currency as appears in the source.  If so, should this perhaps be spelt out?  However ... the section opened with instruction to use country-specific symbols ... symbols but how about currency?  Of course, it would best to use the local currency when writing about specific regions (this will apply equally to time frames as to space frames).  But what does one do when the source does not use local currency ... yeah, find a closer source but failing that ...?
I'd suggest the following guidelines for quoting currency in country-specific articles (where possible/convienient).
#Where the source quotes money in the local currency use that.
#Where the choice between currencies is arbitary prefer the local currency.
#Where the source quotes money in non-local currency use both.
##Where possible give preference to the local currency with non-local source currency in parentheses/footnotes but clearly distinguished as such.
##Otherwise give preference to the source currency with non-source local currency in parentheses/footnotes.   
#In all cases conversions should be allowed (as per the current text).
Too much? How could we simmer it down?  Surely we should fill the hole with something ... or am I just imagining this hole? Jimp 08:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of see what you're saying, but I'm not sure whether there's a problem in practice. Have you encountered difficulties on a specific article? Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not difficulties as such more puzzlement as to why an article specific to country X quotes money in the currency of country Y.  You don't pay tolls on a Japanese highway, for example, in US dollars so why quote the fare in USD/mile?  That's not so helpful especially for the potential traveller. Jimp 09:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the intent is that the figure should be in Yen with a conversion into USD if the editor thinks it's helpful. I don't see what the problem is with the MoS text in this regard. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be the intent to me also.  The problem as I see it would be that this intent can only really be seen if you more or less read between the lines.  The MoS talks about using country-specific symbols.  This would appear to imply the intent that country-specific currency be used.  However, the implication is indirect.  I suggest it might be better were this clearly to be stated rather than left to be inferrded. Jimp 16:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, it doesn't seem unclear to me. I'm certainly not tempted to "fix" it with a longer version if it hasn't caused trouble. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, don't fix what ain't broke but if it really ain't broke then why all the USDs @ France#Economy, Economy of France#Trade, Pakistan#Economy, Economy of Pakistan, Japan#Economy, Economy of Japan, Economy of Germany? Jimp 23:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only looked at France#Economy, but that's a tough call because the point is to compare the GDP of many different nations, and USD is probably the natural choice. In this case, I would go with whatever the source text says, with a conversion to Euros if the source is in USD. In unclear cases, following the source is almost always the right thing to do. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currency 

message: You may wish to be more careful before calling users stalkers, Mel. Frankly you disgust me, the mere thought of you possibly accusing me of stalking you disgusts me, you have an ego problem. Addendum: FYI I proposed reverting your crap on the 26th, I'm not the only one who disputes your change. Matthew 17:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you continue this sort of thing, you'll be blocked for personal attacks. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 18:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be frank I believe the only one heading for a block is your self... WP:POINT. Matthew 18:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations of stalking in edit summaries (redux to Melanie) 

message: I just searched this entire document for "age" and "ages" and the words don't appear.  What should we do with ages?:
# "sixteen years of age", "age twelve", "at twenty-eight", "five-year-old"
# "16 years of age", "age 12", "at 28", "5-year-old"
Despite being almost 1000 pages long, the Chicago Manual of Style 15th Ed. is ambiguous on the matter (and doesn't specifically address ages at all; a rather glaring oversight given how frequently this is done, especially in news reporting).  I'm on the fence on this.  I think that small numbers, like under-100, should be spelled out in non-technical works, with various exceptions like units of measure and sports statistics, as generally suggested by the CMoS.  However I'm also well aware that newspapers and magazines generally don't, and use numerals.  Then again, print journalism is often a terrible reference for grammar, spelling and style.  Then yet again, from a more descriptive p.o.v., perhaps they reflect the genuine evolution of style as generally used and understood.  And so on.  It is more concise, and it is common to use numerals, but something tells me it is also sloppy and unprofessional looking. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 00:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it helps to be consistent in a sentence or a list: If there's a 49 year old and an 8 year old it should be written that way instead of 49 and eight. But I've been told that most style guides don;t like this approach. DGG 18:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to most English books, proper grammer is to write out all number under 20; for example twelve, eight, two for all numbers under 20 and 34, 54, 323 for all numbers above 20; however, I am in agreement with DGG that it should be the same throughout the sentence. —User:Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 22:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ages 

message: Can people look at the two reverts of my edits to St Kilda, Scotland. It could be an ownership problem. Since I have tried twice to correct the article, I don't want to try a third time. Can somebody else try? Editore99 20:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Kilda, Scotland