Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 77

message: All that I can find about precision deals with conversions and geographical coordinates. But what about precision in measuring? The specific case is Interstate 79 and its talk page. The West Virginia Department of Transportation gives a length of 160.52 miles. But, when using trip planning software, the length comes out as 159.75. JA10 wants to use the trip planning software to calculate intermediate distances to exits, but I don't think it's valid, because a primary source that measures its own roadways disagrees with a third-party source that has numerous places in the process that errors can enter. --NE2 04:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So can you state your question in precise terms; unsure what we should be deliberating on—are you proposing that a new point be incuded in MOSNUM? Tony 04:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm asking for advice. --NE2 04:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a "no original research" issue. As much as your colleague would like to do better, this is primarily an instrument for reporting third-party information. Tony 06:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that it is third-party information: use the program and tell it to go from the beginning to the interchange. --NE2 07:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant that WP is primarily an instrument for reporting existing information, rather than new, fresh, original research (i.e., the results of which haven't already been published). Tony 11:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple computations are not original research. --NE2 12:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The difference is so insignificant I could run that distance in under a minute.  Just approximate.  That's what we have to do when we have two "reliable" sources that differ in their calculations.  Just average the distance and call it "approx. x.yz".  NB: I suspect that the cause of the error is either a) government incompetence, b) bad programming, or c) (most likely, really) that the points of measurement were different, e.g. from the furthest possible point to still be considered "on target" to the opposite furthest point, vs. the exact inverse of that determination.  The underlying question is necessarily an approximation anyway, because we are not talking about geometric points, but landmarks.  How far is it from my house to the mall?  You'll get at least as big a variance as you are seeing in your data if you consider "my house" and "the mall" to be the center points of each, or the property boundaries of each on the inner side of the measurement. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 13:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Precision

message: *OPTION 1 (current): say nothing
*OPTION 2 (as currently in the new draft): no dots after any unit abbreviation:
**"The bridge, only 10 metres (33 ft) across, stretched for 8 kilometres (5 mi) across the bay"
*OPTION 3: (SMcCandlish's proposal): dots optional after imperial unit abbreviations, but not after metrics:
**"The bridge, only 10 metres (33 ft) across, stretched for 8 kilometres (5 mi) across the bay"
*OPTION 4: (Tony-modified version of Option 3): no dots after metric abbreviations; dots after imperial units are acceptable, but dot-free is recommended
--------
*(2) is my preference; (3) I could tolerate, but don't like the jarring of dot-free metrics and dotted conversion straight after; (4) would be better than (3); (1) is unacceptable. Tony 02:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the only one, SMcC. Let's list this as an issue that needs to be resolved SOON. I'm keen to implement the text in MOSNUM alone. Tony 01:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I count 2 before me saying (4) would be okay. It's still out-!voted, so I'll let it lie this round. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 06:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dots after imperial-unit abbreviations (''in.'' and ''ft.'' versus ''in'' and ''ft'')

message: We say nothing on this: you people tell me! Tony 02:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a ¾ in the edit box along with a ½, a ⅓, a ⅔, a ¼, a ⅛, a ⅜, a ⅝ and a ⅞.  So 2¾ can be entered directly.  Otherwise, use .   gives . Jɪmp 06:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very happy to insist on the use of the edit box for fractions, and to ban the hyphen (2-3/4 yuck). How about it? Tony 06:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you there.  Would anyone actually write 2-3/4?  Ban it: it looks too much like "two minus three-quarters".  I rather see 2&3/4 or 2+3/4 but none of that nonsense is necessary: we've got the tool box & the frac template.  Note that the tool box is no good for denominators five, six, seven or anything greater than eight. Jɪmp 07:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does IE screw up the frac template too? I don't have IE 6 to test it with. Tony 09:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The Unicode fonts are indeed a problem on IE6.  I can only make out clearly the denominators ‘2’ & ‘4’ among Jimp’s examples, and the numerator ‘5’ could be a ‘3’ for all I can tell.  The  template seriously messes up line spacing.  The hyphen – with no spaces – has long been the standard way to write mixed fractions, in my experience.  Askari Mark (Talk) 20:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  and  are horrid. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why don't we just remain silent on this, as now? Tony 00:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to write two and three quarters as numerals?

message: The section "Dates of birth and death" should , I feel, make some reference to the four templates:
*
*
*
*
indicating the correct way to use them, and mentioning that they are required, if birth dates are to be included in hCards produced by infoboxes. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive my questioning attitude, please: convince me that these templates are useful in the normal scheme of things. Isn't it easier to simply type the date? Will other editors know how to use them. (Mostly not, I think.) And do the templates work with IE 6? And since the subsection goes to pains to say that, at the start of an article, the dates of birth and death shouldn't be tangled up with location (and presumably age at death, too, it confuses things, doesn't it? Tony 00:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are actually getting a lot of buy-in in infoboxes.  It's not such much whether J.Q. Editor will use them, but people who care about microformats will, with AWB.  And some of us (my hand is raising) do it manually when editing anyway. I don't think MOS should tell people they have to use these things, by any means. That's what gnomes and bots are for. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 06:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of birth and death