Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 73

message: This page says:
: The minus sign may be represented by a hyphen ("-") or by − ("−").
The hyphen is far too short for that purpose.  No respectable typesetter would use it.  Compare:
: 5 - 3
: 5 − 3
Within TeX, of course one uses a hyphen, and the reader sees this:
:  5 - 3 \, 
Michael Hardy 22:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DASH seems to agree with you. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia editors are not, in the main, typesetters, respectable or otherwise. Andy Mabbett 11:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Minus signs/Archive 82 Jɪmp 15:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  minus signs 

message: The Transactions of the Linnean Society of London express their volume numbers in Roman numerals. Should I follow their lead and write:  or should I convert to Hindu-Arabic: ? Hesperian 04:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with Roman numerals in my book.  Go ahead.  I like Andy's suggestion: not only would it be clear to readers that this is their usage but also to any editor who might otherwise feel like changing it to Hindu-Arabic. Jɪmp 23:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks folks. Hesperian 12:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman numerals

message: Here's what I wanted to talk about - someone else moved my heading under "centuries" and then wondered why I want to talk about other contradictions under the wrong heading. If we don't exclude measurements, then it contradicts several examples in the Measurements section - 4 inches, 10 miles, 5° C, and 5 ft. Why do contradictions matter, whether or not they are about centuries? Spelling out numbers zero throught ten is the most frequently cited item on the page in my experience. If we don't tell people to do opposite things at the same time - as defined by the rules Wikipedia expects us to follow, not by the Chicago manual - then people would be more likely to obey, cite, and otherwise respect this guideline, and all the other headings on this talk page would be more likely to matter. Art LaPella 20:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That someone else was me.  I did so because it sure looked as if you were specifically referring to centuries and that's the way the discussion had been progressing.  Sorry to cause you strife.  I would say that a distinction can be made between contradictions and exceptions.  If we have this spell-numbers-out-from-zero-to-ten-but-not-from-11-up rule, then I'll be signing this post 11 July 2007 in the usual fashion but yours would have to have been something along the lines (the) ten(th) July 2007 or July (the) ten(th), 2007.  Would we want this?  I'd suggest not.  So exceptions should be allowed for. Jɪmp 00:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say that, in general, measurements and times should be excluded. The problem with such a blanket statement is that it is not always true. In a scientific article that is peppered with measurements, numerals make it easier to read, so they should be used. But in other kinds of prose those numerals (e.g. "The book, when originally published in 1778, was four inches square".) might be out of place. Context matters in measurement, I'm afraid. (By the way, I agree with the "exception" theory articulated above.) Awadewit | talk 16:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradictions II

message: An editor has added a space before various occurrences of "m" for million, both in numbers (populations) and currency sums:  1.2m to 1.2 m and £3.4m to £3.4 m.  I find it clearer with no space (as do others: it wasn't my writing that was being edited).  Is there any guideline or consensus on this? PamD 07:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the space one bit. Tony 09:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Curiously, I note that the editor who put the spaces in has now removed them! But is there a rule, anywhere? (Or is use of "m" for million deprecated anyway?)  PamD 09:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind them where values in the millions are used at least a few times in an article. It's easier to read—highly identifiable by the eyes. As to whether both upper and lower cases are acceptable ... I'm unsure. And I think people might balk at "k" for thousand, although I use it in writing grant applications and budgets. I do like "bn", the Manchester Guardian's abbreviation for "billion", as in "$3.2bn". In fact, "m" and "bn" are much more readily distinguishable than "million" and "billion". Tony 11:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Space them, for the same reason we space everything else.  BTW, I disagree strongly with the idea that "$3.2bn" is more distinguishable; it comes across to me as lazy abbreviationism for no particular purpose, and it is unfamiliar to most readers. My first thought was "huh? 3.2 buns? 3.2 in binomial notation? WTF does this mean?" Granted it only took about half a second to get it, but WP is written for people far below my level of education as well as us smarty editors; why make them get headaches for no reason? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get this idea that such abbreviations are "lazy"? My only concerns are readability, smoothness and concision. We need to compare sample texts for a bird's-eye view of spaced and unspaced. Tony 16:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I find I always tend to first think "meters/metres" whenever I see lower-case "m". An alternative I often see, at least in American financial writings, is to capitalize the initial letter: $4.5M or $4.5B. (Usually there is no space between numbers and letter.) Askari Mark (Talk) 19:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely. Unspaced cap is best. Tony 01:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Lower-case m for million is an abomination. Any scientifically or technically inclined reader will see this symbol as "metre" or "milli", depending on context. It is cognitively wrenching otherwise: your lecture comes to a dead stop, you think furiously for a few milliseconds, and then you say to yourself « Oh ! It must mean million ! ». Urhixidur 15:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So? Do you mind the upper-case “M”, and for that matter, “B” or “bn” for “billion”? Tony 15:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it's an abomination, and 1.2m (as a population figure) should really not exist. As for currencies, I do get the point of £3.4m as spelling out "million" would require a space, making for "£3.4 million", which is strangely grouped, looking more like "(3.4 pounds) millions" than "(3.4 million) pounds". Of course, 3.4 million GBP and 3.2 billion USD, or 3.4 MGBP and 3.2 GUSD using an SI-style prefix, is another way to go. I don't know what our policy on this is, but I don't really like these unqualified $s and £s in a multinational encyclopedia. Of course, most of the time it's clear from context whether the dollars are American or Australian or Canadian, but we can really never be too clear. Anyway, as I said, avoiding the space is pretty much the only point of using m and bn, so no, no space. -- Jao 15:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  m for million - with or without preceding space? 

message: Have just looked at MOSNUM (having earlier been deterred by the "Out of date" tag).  There seems to be an inconsistency:
::Dionysius Exiguus (c.470 – c. 540) 
::Rameses III (reigned c.1180 BCE – c. 1150 BCE) 
Is there really supposed to be a space after the c. for deaths but not births?  I saw Dionysius, thought it was a typo, then saw Rameses.  Does this need tidying up? (As a newcomer to the MOSNUM pages I hesitate to tread on what's probably hotly-disputed territory) PamD 10:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that this is the result of my impulsive change earlier today (adding the spaces, since c.1850, to my eye, looks awkward); someone came along later and reverted most of them. Sorry for my part in this. Do people really prefer this without spaces? Tony 11:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Johnbod 14:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hat taken off to you, Chris. Tony 16:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't you contradicting yourself in saying you prefer "(fl. 760–772), because "fl." pertains to both years of the date range"; should you not then also prefer (c.640–687), where only the first date is approximate?  I just find a sentence like  "Rameses III was ruler of Egypt c. 1180 BCE – c. 1150 BCE and was succeeded by his ...." too sprawling for easy reading. Johnbod 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This inconsistency was introduced in the past couple of months, and circa does not belong with a space. —Centrx→talk • 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Tony 11:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, why not? "c." is an abbreviation of "circa", so "circa 1250" should logically become "c. 1250" (it's not an abbreviation of "circa1250", after all), and there has been no expanation for the disappearing space. I suspect that some editors have simply fallen into the habit of skipping the space, and it now feels right to them. Chris the speller 12:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this would most usefully be addressed by considering the style used by other encyclopedias, as has proved so convincing (to me anyway) on the spelling out of centuries above. Johnbod 13:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OED seems to use no space, no stop: "c1234".  Times style guide specifies space, no stop: "c 1234". Britannica seems to use stop and space: "c. 1234". ODNB seems to use no space, stop: "c.1234". (Wonderful specimen there is "Smith, Theodore (fl. c.1765–c.1810x23)" - I've no idea what the "x23" means!)   So there is precedent for all 4 variations: stop or not times space or not! Does that help?  PamD 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This shouldn't even be a debate.  Of course it should be spaced, for the same reasons we don't write "fl.209-256CE". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 14:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with SMc. And my personal preference would be for the dot. I don't like dots normally, but without it, this abbreviation seems just not as distinguishable as you'd like. We're so used to letter/number combinations, and c 1823 could be a train-engine number. BTW, I see ranges cropping up here with hyphens. MOS insists on en dashes. Tony 15:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also concur.  Whether “c” or “c.”, it’s an abbreviation of a separate word, so there should be a space (although I’d ignore it in a table with space limitations).  Since the standard is to use a period/stop to denote such an abbreviation, as with “fl.” for “flourished”, the same should apply here.  I’m surprised that any style guide offers something as atrocious as “fl. c.1765–c.1810”; “flourished” itself means it’s an approximation, and is used when neither birth nor death information is available.  Askari Mark (Talk) 19:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space after "c."? Examples mixed in MOSNUM