Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 24

message: For
# Bobblewik 19:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote 

message: I still would prefer to be more specific in line with previous proposals. However, I am keen to end talking and get action. This version now includes Maurreen's wording. The proposal is to replace the entire 'Units' section with:
Wikipedia articles are intended for people anywhere in the world. Try to make articles simple to read and translate.
* Conversions should generally not be removed.
* If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second.
* Use digits and unit symbols for the converted value. For example, '100 millimetre (4 in) pipe for 10 miles (16 km)'.
* Converted values should use a similar level of precision as the source value. For example, "the Moon is 400,000 km (250,000 mi) from Earth", not "(248,548.477 mi)".
* Use standard symbols when using symbols: metre is 'm', kilogram is 'kg', inch is 'in' (not " or ″), foot is 'ft' (not ' or ′)
* Do not append an s for plurals of unit abbreviations. Thus 'kg', 'in', 'yd', 'lb' not 'kgs', 'ins', 'yds', 'lbs'.
* Non-metric units often have more than one version. Be specific. Thus 'US gallon' or 'imperial gallon' rather than just 'gallon'. Similarly, 'nautical mile' or 'statute mile' rather than just 'mile' in aviation, space, sea and some other contexts.
* The reader should see a space between the value and the unit symbol, for example "25 kg" not "25kg".
==== Vote ====
Vote for
# Bobblewik 17:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will happily go back to the fifth version . You description of that was: Seems like a good proposal, Bobblewik. The only bit I don't like is the last bullet point, which I would omit. Ultimately the question is whether this wording is better than what we've already got - and the answer is yes. If others disagree, hopefully they'll suggest improvements to this draft, jguk 20:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about Where digits are used, use unit symbols for the converted value, followed by an example where digits are actually used, i.e. with big numbers or when not in prose.  Neonumbers 10:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text:  Does this comment belong in vote for? Bobblewik 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support the change, but prefer not to call my support a vote. Maurreen (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: NB, the language to be added to the 8th bullet, regarding non-breaking spaces, has various markup in it, so should be copied from the edit box of this page or the existing MoS page — where I copied it from — if this comment is accepted.  Chuck 21:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tenth attempt at a revised wording for the 'Units' section 

message: Vote for
# Bobblewik 17:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will happily go back to the fifth version . You description of that was: Seems like a good proposal, Bobblewik. The only bit I don't like is the last bullet point, which I would omit. Ultimately the question is whether this wording is better than what we've already got - and the answer is yes. If others disagree, hopefully they'll suggest improvements to this draft, jguk 20:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about Where digits are used, use unit symbols for the converted value, followed by an example where digits are actually used, i.e. with big numbers or when not in prose.  Neonumbers 10:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text:  Does this comment belong in vote for? Bobblewik 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support the change, but prefer not to call my support a vote. Maurreen (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: NB, the language to be added to the 8th bullet, regarding non-breaking spaces, has various markup in it, so should be copied from the edit box of this page or the existing MoS page — where I copied it from — if this comment is accepted.  Chuck 21:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote