Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 55

message: Please read the proposed change:
===12-hour clock===
* Times in the 12-hour clock end with lower case "am" or "pm". These suffixes should not be omitted.
* As to "12 pm" and "12 am", "(12) noon" and "(12) midnight" should be used for clarity purposes. Some readers may find the former ambiguous and confusing. As it is a wikipedia policy to minimise ambiguity, "(12) noon" and "(12) midnight" are much better than the former.
** Both "12 noon or midnight" and "noon or midnight" is acceptable.
* Normally no leading zero is used to distinguish from times in the 24-hour clock.
* Regarding capitalisation:
** It does not matter what capital form "am/pm" is used. It can be written as "AM or am" or "PM or pm". But please be consistent throughout the article.
** It does not matter whether the first letter of "noon/midnight" is capitalised.
* The dot (.) is optional in the suffix: either am/pm or a.m./p.m. is fine.
* The spacing between the number and suffix is optional: either 2:30am or 2:30 am is fine.
===24-hour clock===
* Time in the 24-hour clock times have no "am/pm/noon/midnight" suffix.
* 00:00 or 24:00 refers to the midnight and 12:00 refers to noon.
** 00:00 refers to the start of a day while 24:00 refers to the end of a day. However the end of a day equal to the start of the next day. That is why 00:00 is identical to 24:00.
** Both 00:00 and 24:00 are acceptable. It does not matter which one you use.
* Normally a leading zero is added to distinguish from times in the 12-hour clock.
===Common formats===
* In either case, the colon (:) should be used to separate hours, minutes and seconds. The use of dot (.) as a separator is not standard. It also causes confusion with the decimal point (.) in 12.45 (amount). Do not use it.
* Do not add extra symbols like (") to indicate second.
* Example:
** Use 12:34:28 pm (but not 12.04 38″ pm)
** Use 00:34 (but not 00.34 or 0.34 or 0034)
—Wai Wai (☎) 20:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Woodstone. Also -- 
#If such loose style is desired by the group, that can be communicated more concisely.
#You've done away with the commonly used periods in "a.m." and p.m."
#Slashes are ugly. Maurreen 17:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wai Wai's change proposal 

message: * In either case, the colon (:) should be used to separate hours, minutes and seconds. The use of dot (.) as a separator is not standard. It also causes confusion with the decimal point (.) in 12.45 (amount). Do not use it.
* Do not add extra symbols like (") to indicate second.
* Example:
** Use 12:34:28 pm (but not 12.04 38″ pm)
** Use 00:34 (but not 00.34 or 0.34 or 0034)
—Wai Wai (☎) 20:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Common formats

message: I wonder if the above proposal merits to be called a guideline: it seems to allow almost any notation. The purpose of guidelines like these is to show a uniform face to the reader. In an encyclopedia edited by many people, some rules to avoid an inconsistent appearance should be given. Therefore in the existing guideline choices are made. Of the many notations AM, A.M., am, a.m., or small caps AM, one only a.m. is selected. That is how most articles are now and why change it?
The part on the 24 hour clock shows a fundamental misinderstanding of 00:00 and 24:00, which are not the same (for the same date they are 24 hours apart). It does matter which one isused.
−Woodstone 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Woodstone. Also -- 
#If such loose style is desired by the group, that can be communicated more concisely.
#You've done away with the commonly used periods in "a.m." and p.m."
#Slashes are ugly. Maurreen 17:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on above proposal

message: I thought there was a style recommendation for complicated units like mm•K/W, but I don't see it.  How should we format things like this? — Omegatron 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the "Manual of Style" has such a recommendation, but the standard IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states on page 14 "Symbols. To avoid ambiguity in complicated expressions, unit symbols are preferred over unit names." I think this should go in the manual. --Gerry Ashton 15:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't not be against this going in the manual.  However, we should insist on having a page (linked to the symbol) explaining what the unit is and how it used.  Some of the symbols would be obvious, but they should still be linked to the respective article.  If mph and km/h have articles about them then so should mm•K/W.  MJCdetroit 14:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compound units 

message: I was taking a look at the changes and I noticed this (which was present in both versions)
:Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.
I would assume that in non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries there is in fact a preferred style and IMHO we should stick with this. So perhaps it would be best to at least mention this (e.g. although if a national style is known, this should be used). Depending on how variable national styles are, we might even be able to include some info on national styles from non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries... Nil Einne 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with including "(e.g. although if a national style is known, this should be used if it does not conflict with this style guide)," with the modification at the end. But I think extra info on national styles might be too much detail. Maurreen 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give an example of an English speaking country that was not part of the British Empire/ Commonwealth and the type of date style that is used there?---MJCdetroit 19:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I should have been clearer but reading the statement "non-Commonwealth, non-US/Canada countries" makes me think that there is/are other date styles besides the two that are used in the U.S./Canada and British Commonwealth —i.e. besides August 13th, 2006 or 13 August 2006 (and their slight variations).  I don't want this taken the wrong way but we should only be concerned with how native English speaking counties style things.  If this was Spanish Wikipedia that I would wonder how dates were styled in South America.MJCdetroit 13:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... Some of my ideas: 1) If most editors here are American, does it mean only American spelling or style should be used. Not so. Wikipedia is intended to be edited by everyone in the world. 2) The style guide should not take editors into consideration only. 3) It is also intended to be read by everyone in the world. Some styles or formatting, even if it causes no problem to one nation or country, may cause problems on another. This style should not be used to avoid ambiguity to visitors of other nations.—Wai Wai (☎) 20:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: See my comments on International Dating further on on this page. My feeling is that articles should use a consistent style, and related articles be consistent. Accordingly, it follows that unless we favour open slather or uniform adherence throughout the English Wikipedia to one style or the other, then we are going to have a geographical divide on this issue, and that we should note which style a country favours in deciding how to draw the line. --Jumbo 17:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates, non WaiWai issue 

message: I have copied the "dates and numbers" style guide to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Wai Wai's proposal. I encourage to Wai Wai to change this subpage to indicate his desired changes. Maurreen 07:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Wai Wai|Wai Wai]] subpage

message: The fifth bullet of the Partial dates section includes the guidance that when all we have is year and month, we should do so in the format April 1974 → April 1974.  This appears to contradict the second bullet which says that when all we have is the month, it should generally not be linked.  As it says at the start of the section, month alone or with year has no relevance to the date-preference issue.  Month with year is unlikely to ever logically link to the generic article on April.  It seems that this line should be changed to April 1974 → April 1974.  The month generally should not be linked.
It's been a long time since I looked in on this page so if this has been discussed, please point me to the right place in the archives.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer not linking the year either, or least not requiring it. Maurreen 03:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikidates give correct format when user date preferences are selected, and should almost always be used. However, this is for full (day, month and year) dates. Months and years (alone or together) need no linking (unless there is a good contextual reason), as no additional formatting is performed. --Jumbo 03:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it makes no sense to have an example of doing something specifically discouraged. —Centrx→talk • 05:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm distinctly uncomfortable about providing examples that include links which are highly contentious. Why the year at all? Tony 06:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well spotted. I think both April 1974 and April 2000 should say "Generally should not be linked" to be consistent with the guidance and the other entries in the list. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, so if no one objects, can you make the changes? Tony 11:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but let's wait a little while to see if anyone has any opposing comments. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This point is pure instruction creep. Individual months are not linked. Individual years are the subject of considerable dispute. Why the krett do we need a seperate guideline for month-year combinations? Moreover, there is absolutely no excuse for saying "generally do not link" in the circumstances Stephen notes when this would overturn the whole result of months of discussion earlier this year (involving far more people than the three people who have commented here). Rebecca 02:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rebecca seems adamant about this, and I don't care about it that much because I think the principles are now clear. So I accept her reversion — other people can argue about it if they want to. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Partial dates|Partial dates]] 

message: #The International date format is ISO 8601, which leads, for example, "to the increasingly familiar YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss format seen in international forums."
#British English is not synonymous with international English. Maurreen 00:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: When a.m. or p.m. is used at the end of a sentence, do you add another period? For example: 
It begins at 2 p.m.
or
It begins at 2 p.m..
--Silver Edge 02:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you don't need a second period. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time formatting 

message: So if Rebecca wants to remove the "generally do not link" phrases, and the examples are retained, why are they linked? That is completely biassed towards linkomaniacs. Get rid of the examples altogether, I say. Tony 09:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The examples are listed as examples of dates which do not respond to users' date preferences. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  blued out examples 

message: On WP, international date format redirects to ISO 8601, which indicates the year first. I am not saying we should or shouldn't use this; I'm just clarifying and giving a reference for "international date format". Maurreen 04:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an international standard, but it's not really something we want sitting in the middle of slabs of encyclopaedic text. OTOH, it is good for tables and database fields and stuff, and because it's a big-endian format it's good for sorting, and nobody's going to get confused as to whether it's the 12th of November or December 11. "International Dating" is in contrast to "American Dating". We can't call it "British Dating", because it is used by countries with little or no British heritage. France, for example. --Jumbo 06:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If you choose the terminology, you decide the outcome. Ask the prolifers/prochoicers. It's a simply matter of whether we will use the conventions of British English or American English, or allow both. - Nunh-huh 09:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: International date format

message: When writing out year ranges avoid truncation and use the full year
Proper
*1911-1940
*1911 to 1940
Not proper
*1911-40
*1911-2 (for 1911 to 1912)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 
:Um, why?  1911–40 is a perfectly proper style, followed by many widely accepted style guides, is much easier to identify as a range, and is rather neater when many ranges are given. Kirill Lokshin 15:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, except in articles where the context is clear, such as decade or century articles.  There's too much danger of some bot or misguided wikipedian linking the first "not proper" as 1911–40 (which is wrong), or 1911–40 , which may be confusing.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I don't think that they're good enough reasons not to use the neater style. I always do it—so much easier to recognise and comprehend. Tony 04:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The style guides were created for paper documents with limited space. The full date also makes it easier to do text based searches for years. I can search for "-1940" to find events that ended in 1940. Plus with the millenium change some dates are inherently ambiguous such as 1996-7. Is that 1996 to 1997 or 1996 to 2007? Plus "1996-07" is the ISO version of "July 1996". The old convention was created to save space, we don't need to hold onto archaic conventions created for outmoded purposes. If we err, it should be on the side of clarity, not space saving. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not designed for space saving—a few digits wouldn't matter for most printed works—but for ease of reading; when reading quickly, it's easier to note the approximate length of the range if the identical first digits are ommitted.  We should, indeed, prefer formats designed for being read by humans (that being Wikipedia's intended audience) rather than things like the ISO format, which are designed for machine processing at the expense of comprehensibility.  (Incidentally, 1996–7 when 1996–2007 is intended would simply be wrong, as the truncation is used only when the first digits are identical; this is no more related to date styles than any other merely incorrect formatting would be.) Kirill Lokshin 05:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You took the words out of my mouth, Kirill. And why not do your search for "–40"? This would rarely throw up false positives in a search. And the en dashes?? 1901–03, not 1901-03?Tony 07:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I first looked into this, before I found this style guide, because someone had linked 2004–05  (I was looking for mistaken links to years beginning with "0", as there was an editor who was creating such years.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then said editor needs to be instructed as to the proper way of linking dates.  It's no reason to bludgeon all of the editors who do know how to format them into a different style, though.  (After all, there are plenty of other ways date links could be wrong.  For example, have you ever seen someone link "1200 men"?) Kirill Lokshin 20:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. What is wrong with forms like 1975-1976? Also, the dates don't need to be linked unless there is a special reason for them to be. I too have seen many instances of the type 2004-05. The single digit version 2004-5 is the worst. --Guinnog 23:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (one person's opinion) To put a context on it, when reading along and finding a rare or occassional use of a date range, i.e. one instance on a whole page of a year range, it flows better to present 1910-1933.  But, in an article rich with date ranges, then a more abbreviated method would be desirable.  The same then, in a chart with a lot of date ranges. An abbreviated method would be strongly desirable.  This is from a reader's point of view, okay? Terryeo 23:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced by that. What I want to avoid is a bunch of eight numerals, made even bunchier by using a hyphen rather than an en dash. I can't see why the frequency of the appearance of dates in a text alters matters. Rather than 1910-1930, I always recommend 1910–30: it's very clear and slightly easier to read. In the same way, I recommend "two- and three-voice rendition" rather than "two-voice and three-voice rendition".  However, I'm not saying that it should be the only prescribed method—just an option. Tony 02:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that it's "slightly easier to read".  I find it slightly harder.  That's all I'm saying.  Powers T 15:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year ranges proposal for comment 

message: I'm sorry to harp on about this, but the linked date examples in the MoS are not acceptable. They're linked, and two are followed by "Generally do not link". Both of these factors suggest that the other trivial chronological items should be linked. Can we try to achieve consensus among both factions to avoid this clear implication, which is one-sided? Tony 04:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you've misunderstood. They're given as examples of links that don't respond to date preferences. For two of them there is consensus that they shouldn't normally be linked. For the others there is no consensus. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking disease