Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 71

message: What is the policy on superscripting the "th" in special numbers such as "4th" and "8th"? Is the superscript required or not? I apologize if this is already mentioned in the article. BlueAg09 (Talk) 06:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I don't think it is mentioned, but my personal view is that the superscript is unconventional, and so shouldn't be used. I realise this may be due to outdated limitations of typewriters, but that seems to be the convention nonetheless. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I also think that if there's consensus, it would be worth adding a bullet point about this. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: One more thing. Small numbers are best spelled out in most contexts: fourth and eighth. This applies to ordinal numbers just as much as cardinal numbers. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there should be a bullet point about the ordinal superscripting. In fact, I found many university publications on style that mention this: Columbia, Davidson, and MIT to name a few. Search for "superscript" in each of these publications and you will be able to find the rule against superscripting ordinals eventually. BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why would this situation ever come up? Wouldn't you always fully spell out the ordinal in words?  nadav (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Only ordinals 10 and below (first, second, third, etc.) should be spelled out in words. Numbers greater than 10 should be written in numerals. BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After seeing the links you provided, I fully support disallowing use of superscripts for ordinals. nadav (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  FWIW, & IIRC, BlueAg's suggestion is supported by the AP style guide. Actually, what I remember is that the AP style guide mandates spelling numbers 10 & below; the ordinal form follows logically. -- llywrch 20:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I believe you are right; the AP style guide disallows the superscript use. I found a website that seems to have AP style guide rules. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where would be a good place to add this information? BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superscript "th"

message: In light of today's reverts, perhaps it is time to apply Full or Semi-protection to this section of the MOS.  I know there are pros and cons associated with such an action, but I thought I'd float the idea out there to see how others feel.  Do you  have any thoughts on this? —MJCdetroit 18:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an important page; it's a bit disconcerting if its advice changes every few minutes. It seemed fairly obvious that there were 5 or 6 anons making similar edits so I'd be in favour of semi-protection. There might well be a case for full, with some consensus being required before changes.  -- roundhouse 19:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: What happens when you use a decimal or fraction, eg 0.6 kilometers. Should the units be plural or singular? There is some disagreement about this.  nadav (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're spelling out the word, I think it would be pluralised: "0.6 kilometres". But note that the symbol is never pluralised: "0.6 km". Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the abbreviation info is in the guideline. I would like the guideline to specifically address the situation where the full word is used. And I share your opinion. nadav (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural for fraction of a unit? 

message: The guidelines currently say to "spell out units [of measurement] in text".  That works fine for something like "", but is this also how multi-dimensional conversions are supposed be formatted?  Consider, for example:
 2 feet × 5 feet (0.6 m × 1.5 m)
Somehow it does not look right.  Would
 2 feet by 5 feet (0.6 m × 1.5 m)
be more correct, as far as the MOS is concerned?  I would appreciate an advice regarding this.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second one looks more correct to me because the X in the first is a symbol to represent by.  In my dialect of English it is always spoken that way. MJCdetroit 18:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Perhaps this MOS should be updated to mention this?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the MoS needs guidance about this. It can be sorted out on a case-by-case basis if necessary. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Units of measurement

message: Surely it would make sense to spell out the name of a unit only the first time that it is used in the text of a given article, since short forms are well recognised, and the long forms are, for SI units particularly, cumbersome
Sammalin 15:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Units of measurement abbreviations

message: Hello all. I don't know if this has been proposed before, but to make entries easier to find I think that the the listings on dab pages of people's names should be in order of age, oldest to youngest, i.e. the oldest birth years on top and the youngest birth years on the bottom. That should not only make the page easier to navigate, but should also reduce the incidence of duplicate listings. Thoughts? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question should be resolved on the talk page for MoS:DP instead of this page, but the guideline already considers that as an option. The overriding consideration, however, is usefulness to the reader, not uniformity, so you will meet resistance from other editors who have arranged the entries with the more frequently linked people at the top. Chris the speller 02:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had thought I WAS on the Mos:DAB page. I just went looking for the conversation now and couldn't find it and had to dig around in my history. I think I had both pages open on separate tabs and got confused as to which tab I had open. Sorry for bringing in an off topic debate! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 11:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing order for people's names