Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 15

message: Starting with archive 9, people began discussing whether to use "BC" or "BCE", whether to add periods between the letters, whether to add "AD" to articles bout dates, etc.  Som eof the issues and related pages that cropped up:
* "Believe it or not, there are plenty of articles with numbers greater than 2070 which ignore the rules about articles for years vs. numbers." --anon
* CE?  AD?  AD 101?  101 AD?   Discussion starts in archive 9 & 11.  No decision; articles currently at  the bare number to avoid choosing among these, to the disgruntlement of number theorists.
** see also: Talk:Anno_Domini
* BC v. BCE?  Having both, with one as a redirect, seems obvious.  Should there be a recommendation on which to use, for style?  Articles currently at BC. 
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/proposed revision for discusion of BC vs BCE. --JK the unwise 14:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but if a user searches for 1997, it almost certainly means that he/she is looking for the article about the year 1997. Years are linked to in almost every article, so changing this would take a lot of work, both on the technical side and on mindset. — David Remahl 15:57, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand the rationale for the many number articles in general. Maurreen 17:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many people find numbers interesting, and they have arguably encyclopaedic properties. — David Remahl 17:40, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  1997 is a prime number! So it is possible that the user is looking for information about this number! I think that 1997 is a number and in the Gregorian calendar it is associated to a year. But it is a number in first place. Fupis 20:43, 05 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: AD, BC, et al.

message: Pulled from this page's archives:
I think that it is more logical for an article named something like "60" to refer to the number sixty. It can be distinguished from the date by titling the date articles "AD 60" or "60 BC". If a user searches for "60", doesn't it make sense that they want the number 60, not AD 60?
:Perhaps, but if a user searches for 1997, it almost certainly means that he/she is looking for the article about the year 1997. Years are linked to in almost every article, so changing this would take a lot of work, both on the technical side and on mindset. — David Remahl 15:57, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand the rationale for the many number articles in general. Maurreen 17:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many people find numbers interesting, and they have arguably encyclopaedic properties. — David Remahl 17:40, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  1997 is a prime number! So it is possible that the user is looking for information about this number! I think that 1997 is a number and in the Gregorian calendar it is associated to a year. But it is a number in first place. Fupis 20:43, 05 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More on year vs. number

message: In section Style for numbers, weights, and measures:
"use standard abbreviations or symbols for metric units without an added s in the plural — m for metre, kg for kilogram, etc. (see SI for the list) — and two-letter abbreviations for inch-pound units — in for inch (not "), ft for foot (not '), yd for yard (not yds), mi for mile, lb for pound (not lbs), gal for gallon, pt for pint, qt for quart, and so forth."
"m" is a symbol for metre, but "yd" is an abbreviation for yard—like the text says—and should thus, in my humble opinion, be followed by a period: "yd.". I agree that it gets a little awkward with cubic yards etc., which would become "yd.³", but the English units are awkward themselves already. I can also see, that a few of these abbreviations are of a special kind, not being contractions of the actual English name: engl. pound -> lat. libra -> lb.
I'd also like a (linked) normative list of abbreviations for English units and a suggested style for disambiguity prefixes and suffixes, e.g. for ounce (fluid/mass, US/Imperial, Avoirdupois/Troy) or gallon (US/Imperial, dry/wet).
There should perhaps be a note on using the applicable unit, e.g. pound vs. pound-force.
Christoph Päper 11:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbols vs. abbreviations 

message: I believe these guidelines should be placed in this document:
* Avoid ordinal suffixes in dates: "February 14" rather than "February 14th" (Note that this should be a non-issue if full-length dates are linked properly, but could be an issue when the year is omitted)
* No "of" should be used when referencing a month in a specific year: "January 2005" rather than "January of 2005" (This should definitely be included: I see this a lot, and we don't always link in this situation)
– flamuraiTM 05:06, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
:The first point needs to be tweaked a little for clarity (such as "... dates: Use 'February 14' ..." Maurreen 07:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the reasoning behind such a guideline?  Is it just to achieve uniformity?  (I ask largely because the format “14th February 1956” is pretty standard in the U.K.; indeed, I'd say that “14 February” looks to our eyes rather odd and machine-like — and “February 14” positively bizarre). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur wholeheartedly with both guidelines, but (to avoid possible misunderstandings) would tweak the wording further, thus: "... dates: Use 'February 14' or '14 February' rather than 'February 14th', '14th February', etc." (Post edit conflict PS: I'm surprised by User:Mel Etitis's comments; I didn't think that was the case. The reasoning, in any event, is so that the neat automagic wikilinked date format conversion gadget can kick in: see "Preferences".) –Hajor 23:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also concur with both guidelines. "February 14th" just doesn't work with the date preference settings -- it's left as is, rather than being converted to 14 February, February 14, etc. -- Arwel 00:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: What is the reason for avoiding "January of 2005"? It often works better gramatically and stylisticly, IMO. "In January of 2005 John Doe first discovered....".  The link to the year can be preserved in any case, and as others are suggesting elsewhere on this page links to month, year without a complete date are of limited value. DES 17:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline suggestion: Avoid "January 14th" and "January of 2005"